1921-05-06

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1000	Volume II: Pages 1001-2026


Volume III:: Pages 2027-3003	Volume IV: Pages 3005-4040


Volume V:: Pages 4041-4580



VOLUME CXLIX


[Stage Direction]
) [DOT] -!
: ! ) 1
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 6, 1921.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lamb-ton) presented the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix- Montmorency) moved that the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CASGRAIN moved:: That the petition of the Quebec Steamship Company be received forthwith, subject to the additional charge provided by Rule 89, paragraph 3 (a).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137, to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting Quebec Steamship Company.-Mr. Casgrain.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. K. SPINNEY (Yarmouth) moved that the first report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 138, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill covers quite a number of proposed amendments to different articles of the Code as it now stands. I will indicate briefly those that are of the most importance.
[DOT] 191
There is a provision to make it an offence to have illicit connection with any feebleminded girl or woman, and the definition of feeble-minded is taken from the English Act.
There is a provision giving a Recorder's Court jurisdiction, as well as the recorder himself, and power, if a court of record, as it is in Montreal, to keep its records. This is a provision made necessary by recent decision to the effect that while the recorder acting, not as the Recorder's Court, had the extended jurisdiction of two magistrates, the Recorder's Court itself had not that jurisdiction. The business had been carried on for years on the assumption that the court had at least as much jurisdiction as the individual recorder. It is to correct the situation that the provision is introduced.
There is a provision repealing a proviso that was inserted in the Senate to the Bill that was passed by this House at the last session, which proviso had the result that on trials for seduction the judge might instruct the jury that if they did not think the evidence showed that the accused was wholly or chiefly to blame, they might acquit. The purpose of this amendment is to re-establish the Bill as it was passed by the Commons. There is a special provision also to prohibit illicit connection with Indian women. It has been found that there was necessity for special provision in that regard.
Another provision of the Bill is to make illegal the possession of bombs without lawful excuse.
Then we have a provision with regard to the existing law in connection with the necessity of permits for the possession of firearms. There has been very general representation that the existing law operated too rigorously, lent itself to abuses and subjected citizens to unnecessary annoyance. This matter has been pressed from many quarters. The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) have been particularly insistent upon the necessity of reform. The hon. member for

[Stage Direction]
Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) also has made representations in the matter, and as the House is aware, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has introduced a Bill dealing with the subject. I am not prepared to say that our provision is identical with the terms of that Bill but the aim sought to be attained is the same.
Then there is a clause reintroducing a provision which has been passed by this House on different occasions and rejected by the Senate, making it an offence for persons who are not married to register themselves in hotels as being married.
There is a provision to make it an offence for intoxicated persons to drive motor cars.
Then there are special provisions with regard to the offence of stealing motor cars. We had very general representations that it was desirable or necessary to stiffen the law in that regard.
There is a provision to assimilate the law with regard to indecent assaults to the law with regard to rape or having illicit connection with children, so that in the case of indecent assault the consent of a child under the fixed age shall not be a defence, and also raising the age from fourteen to sixteen. There is a provision to add whipping as a possible punishment for rape, robbery, and assault with intent to rob. It is found that the law as it now stands permits whipping for the attempt to rape but does not permit it for the graver offence. With regard to robbery and assault with intent to rob, we have had very strong representations from many parts of the country urging that this would be a more effective deterrent. There is also a provision striking out of the article dealing with the offence of carnally knowing girls the words inserted by the Senate, " of previous chaste character".
There is a clause to provide for the whipping of juvenile criminals under twenty-one years of age. It is not intended that they should be flogged; the term used is "spanking." I understand, as a matter of fact, that there is not at the present time any law providing for this, but several judges have taken it upon themselves to order this punishment, and it is reported that it has proved most efficacious.
Mr. MURPHY:: Is there an age limit
as to that?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Yes, it will be applied to people under twenty-one.
There is a provision, at the instance of the Public Works Department, to make the letters "D.P.W." indicate that any articles to which they are attached is the

property of the Public Works Department, and to protect the property accordingly.
There is a provision to prohibit what is known as the game of three-card monte. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune) has already, as the House knows, introduced a Bill for that purpose, and I think the present provision meets the intent and purpose of his Bill. In any event, I shall be glad to consult with the hon. member if there be any difference in the wording.
There is an amendment to the provision constituting the crime of arson, making the burning of chattels over $25 in value constitute the offence.
There is a provision extending to gas wells the protection now given to oil wells.
There are provisions with regard to cruelty to animals. Without going into details, I may say that the purpose of these provisions, which are asked for by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is to bring our law, if I may use the expression, up to date, to introduce into it some reforms that have been introduced into the law in England and in others of the Dominions.
There is a provision against making metal tokens redeemable in goods.
There are some minor changes with regard to procedure, and one particular provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases where, the accused having been acquitted by the trial courts, a court of appeal has set aside that verdict and ordered a new trial. As the law stands at present, a man who is convicted in the first court, and who upon an appeal to the Appellate Court of the province succeeds in having even one judge dissent from the decision, expressing the view that the conviction should be set aside, is entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas a man, who has a verdict of absolute acquittal in the first court, is debarred from any appeal if the Court of Appeal should set aside that verdict in his favour and send him back to be tried over again. Attention was called to this condition of affairs by a recent case in Alberta, and I think the fairness of providing for an appeal in this case will be obvious to everybody.
' There is a provision making it possible in certain classes of offences to place the convicted person, in whose case the sentence may have been suspended, under a system of probation where his conduct may be observed.
There is a provision for increasing the fees of magistrates and constables in pro-

secutions in summary cases. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) was interested in that matter.
There are provisions to simplify the procedure before justices of the peace by doing away with the necessity of fees in such cases and simplifying the forms. This matter has been pressed upon us by different magistrates who seem to establish that there is an unnecessary degree of formality at the present time.
I think this covers all, at all events of the substantial ^modifications which are sought to be made in the existing code.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: The right hon. gentleman spoke of the illegal use of bombs. What does he mean by that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This makes it illegal
to have bombs in one's possession-the mere possession-without lawful excuse. As the law stands at present, there is no absolutely clear provision that the mere possession without explanation or excuse should be an offence, and it is thought proper that there should be such a provision.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I had hopes
that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) would have included in his Bill-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. On the introduction of a Bill no debate could possibly be allowed. It is impossible to remind the hon. minister of some clause that should have been and is not included in the Bill, without in some measure debating the motion. This is a matter that should be brought up on second reading or in committee, but not upon the motion to introduce the Bill.


Joseph Archambault: I do not want to criticize your ruling, Sir, nor to debate what the Minister of Justice has said, but simply to make a suggestion. I had introduced a Bill, and I hoped the minister would have included in the present Bill the purpose of my Bill. I think he will do so, if I remind him.


Georges Henri Boivin: That could
be done much more regularly in committee, after the second reading of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be very happy to consult with the hon. gentleman.


Mr. CANNON:: Will the minister inform the House when he intends bringing up this Bill for discussion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill will naturally come up for second reading at the
191i
next sitting of the House. It will be brought up at as early a moment as is convenient, and I shall be glad to consult the convenience of any members interested.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 139, to amend the Immigration Act. He said:	I might
remind the House that earlier in the session a Bill was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), one purpose of which was the repeal of the section in the present law providing for the deportation of persons who had made seditious utterances under certain circumstances. It is proposed to repeal that section. In addition to that, the Bill contains some fifteen or twenty sections providing for very slight modifications in the law, required very largely from the standpoint of administration. I doubt very much if I should take up the time of the House at this time in explaining the small minor changes which I propose to make.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 141, to amend the Statistics Act.
He said: This is a Bill of one clause to provide that statistical forms and schedules which are returnable from the source to a provincial department in pursuance of any arrangement made between the Dominion Government and the provincial Government for the more economical and efficient gathering of statistics shall be, when forwarded to this department, free of postage.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 140, to amend the Patent Act.
He said: This is the Bill of the provisions of which I gave notice to the House when I moved for' the discharge of the Patent Act Consolidation Bill. The present Bill
[Stage Direction]
consists of four proposed amendments, which it is felt are necessary to be made this session for the purposes set forth therein.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is the
nature of the amendments?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: One is to provide for granting relief to patentees and inventors who through disturbances caused by the war have lost their patents by void-ance, either through failure to manufacture, non-payment of fee, or failure to acquire patents within the prescribed time. The Bill also provides that Canada may get the benefit of the reciprocal clauses in what is known as the Nolan Bill, which has passed through both Houses at Washington.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	'

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: The morning papers announce that Premier Massey has arrived at Victoria on his way to the Imperial Conference, and that he gave out an interview. According to the despatches, Premier Massey has stated that he is prepared to place a measure of reciprocity with Canada on the statute books of New Zealand, and he also advocates a constitution for the British commonwealth of nations and an Imperial executive. The two latter he describes as vital needs of the Empire. May I ask if it is intended to have a conference on this subject with Premier Massey on the part of the Government?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: No request has been received by the Government for any special conference with the Prime Minister of New Zealand on this or any other subject. I did observe the headline in the paper that an interview had been given by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, but I really do not understand that because another Prime Minister desires to give an interview that should be the occasion for a new expression of opinion from me. There has been no request for an interview on this or any other subject relating to the Imperial Conference.



EXTRADITION TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: A few days ago I drew the attention of my right hon. friend the Minister

of Justice (Mr. Doherty) to the fact that a treaty of extradition between Canada and the United States had been passed by the United States Senate and that we knew nothing of it here. I do not suppose it is a matter of first-rate importance, but the session is drawing to an end and I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to submit that treaty to Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have had telegraphic confirmation of what appeared in the newspapers with regard to the ratification by the American Senate of a treaty making, as between Canada and the United States, wife desertion an extraditable offence. With that message was sent us an assurance that the information would be sent to us by mail in proper form, and as soon as it arrives, it is in contemplation to submit the treaty to the House for authorization to ratify.


William Stevens Fielding: Have we no copy of the treaty? Have we to wait for Washington to provide us with a copy of a treaty to which we are a party?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are awaiting the proper evidence that the treaty has been ratified.


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking of a copy of the treaty. We ought not have to wait on Washington for that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. I will see that the copy is brought down. What had been in contemplation was to bring it down as a schedule to the Bill. The treaty deals simply with the making of wife desertion an extraditable offence.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works, I think it would be, to the fact that five or six weeks ago an order for a return was passed in connection with a question of mine as to the amounts of money spent on Government harbours throughout the country. I understand that this would involve some work, but it is now almost six weeks since the order was passed, and I am anxious to have the return this session.


Hon. F. B. McCURDY (Minister of Public Works) :: I shall be glad to look into the matter and see that the return is brought down at the earliest possible date.

' Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres): On March 4, last an order for a return was passed regarding the amounts of money loaned by Canada to Greece and Roumania since April 19, 1920. I called the attention of the Government on April 29, to the fact that the return had not been brought down, and the hon. Minister of Finance said that he would make inquiry, but the return has not been brought down yet. I can therefore only conclude that the Government does not intend to have the matter discussed on the Budget.


Arthur Meighen: I speak only from recollection, but I think the information has been given to the House, if not in the form of a return, in answer to a question. In fact, I recall being in my place and hearing the matter referred to.


Joseph Archambault: I know I did not get the return.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it was in
answer to a question. I will make a note and direct the hon. gentleman's attention to where he will find the information.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Third reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Charles Joseph Doherty: At the request of my colleague-, the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Calder), I beg to move that this Bill be referred back to committee for the purpose of amending subsection (e) of section 1 by adding thereto the following words:
In any case where a line is imposed the sentence may adjudge a term of imprisonment or a further term of imprisonment not exceeding in any case twelve months to be served .by the offender if such tine is not paid.
The member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) having called attention to the fact that in the Bill as it went through the committee, here is a provision under which a penalty may be imposed in the form of a fine, and no specific provision fixing a period of imprisonment to be imposed in default of payment of that fine, I find, on looking into the matter, that the hon. gentleman was quite right in saying that under any general provision of law the maximum imprisonment under those circumstances, would be three months; and I agree with him that in the case of this particular offence the term of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine should be longer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When we were discussing this Bill the other day I mentioned to my hon. friend the Minister of Health that a seizure was made not long ago in the city of Montreal of two or three trunks filled with cocaine, presumably imported from Europe. That cocaine was seized and delivered to the police court authorities, and later on some persons, evidently the owners, in league with certain lawless characters, broke into the Court House and got possession of the drug. I am told that the cocaine has been located and that attempts are again being made to get it back. My hon. friend said the other day that he had been informed of the fact, and would give some information in regard to the case.


Mr. CALDER:: When the matter was
drawn to my attention the other day by the hon. member I said that I had asked for information respecting this incident. It has not yet come to me from the department, so that apart from my knowledge of the fact that this cocaine was lost sight of for a while, I really know nothing about the matter. I shall be glad shortly to ascertain the facts and inform the hon. member accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Bill as ameded reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 60, to amend the Judges' Act.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The amendments which the Senate has made to this Bill have no relation to or connection with the provisions, of the Bill itself. With one exception, they deal with a perfectly distinct subject-There is an amendment in which I propose to ask concurrence, but another amendment deals with the shbject of judges acting on commissions and provides that no judge mentioned in this Act shall act as a commissioner or arbitrator on any commission or inquiry, provided that this section shall not interfere with judges who are at present acting as commissioners or arbitrators, completing the work on which they are engaged. This proposed amendment raises, of course, a very important question. I do not desire to pronounce now pro or con on the merits of the proposal, but 1 may point out that it is a question

that calls for careful consideration, and might very properly form the subject matter of a measure dealing professedly with it. The Bill itself provided for a new judge in Saskatchewan in view of certain provincial legislation; it dealt with the income tax of the present Chief Justice; and made certain provision with regard to the travelling allowances of judges resident in the province of New Brunswick. This amendment introduces an absolutely different matter, and presented to the House in its present form, it affords, it seems to me, no opportunity of dealing with this important question upon its merits, and giving it the consideration to which it is entitled. I feel, therefore, that this House should not concur in that particular amendment.
There is another amendment made to paragraph three to meet the case of the judge resident at Moncton, in New Brunswick. It has been made perfectly clear, by representations of the Attorney General of the province and numerous others interested who would have been affected by the change provided in the Bill, that it is essential for the proper carrying on of public business that there should be a judge resident at Moncton, and that, in consequence, an exception should be made to the general provision with regard to travelling allowances. With regard to that amendment I desire that this House should concur in it. With regard to the other proposed amendment I would respectfully submit that this House should not concur in it. I beg therefore to move:
That this House do concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Section 3 of the present Bill.


Mr. COPP:: The amendment to section 3 has reference to the judge living in the city of Moncton?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I now move that the other amendments be not concurred in.


Georges Henri Boivin: There should be reasons given to the Senate for non-concurrence in these amendments and these reasons should be included in the motion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I wish to ascertain if I am right in my impression that when the Judges Act was amended a year or so ago, the judges were obliged to act as commissioners or investigators, but without any special fees? If that is so I have no objection to this proceeding.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman states correctly the present condition of the law. .


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend permit me-is that quite correct? I do rot think an amendment was made to the effect that the said judges were obliged to act on commissions. What we did say was that if they did act on commissions they were not to get public money. I do not think the amendment said they were obliged to act on commissions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my memory serves me the provision was that judges would be obliged to serve on commissions, where they were requested so to do by the Dominion or provincial governments, and to do so without remuneration. It will be obvious, if no such provision was made but merely a provision that they were entitled to no remuneration, that, if it be desirable in the public interest that they should serve, either this Government or a provincial government might find itself in great difficulty in assuring themselves of the services of judges for the purposes of such commissions. I have not the text of the Act before me but I do not think I am mistaken.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is probably correct.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That this House do not agree to the amendments made by the Senate as ss. 4 and 5 of Bill No. 60, An Act to Amend the Judges Act, for the following reasons: because the said amendments (a) deal with matters entirely unconnected with the Bill; (b) bring the questions therein treated before the House in a manner which does not afford proper discussion, and (c) should form the subject matter of a separate measure.


Mr. MOWAT:: I understand that the
House cannot express its opinion one way or the other as to the advisability of these amendments. In reality the present motion is in the nature of an appeal to the Senate not to insist on their amendments so that the matter can be properly brought up. I would not like to see the House object to the substance of the amendments by the Senate, because I think the time has come when something of this kind is necessary. There are many judges in the land who would like to see such a clause passed, because they think when they are being called upon by the Dominion or the Provincial Governments to act as commissioners it very often detracts from their usefulness and importance as judges.


Joseph Archambault: They can always refuse to act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Doherty moves:
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours with the non-concurrence of this House in the amendments made by the Senate by the addition of sub-clauses 4 and 5 to Bill No. 60, an Act to Amend the Judges Act-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Tolmie Bill No. 136 to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Clause 1-Operation of provision for compensation extended for three years.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Is this Bill retroactive in its effect, and if so why?


Mr. TOLMIE:: In 1918 certain sums were fixed as compensation for animals destroyed, hut the Bill was made operative for only three years, from May 24, 1918. That time will expire on May 24 next, and it is necessary that we should extend the operation of the Act for three years longer, making the period six years instead of three. No change is being made in the amount of compensation paid; the period of payment is simply extended for another three years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought from reading the section that it was retroactive.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 35 to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-age limits of boys and girls raised from 16 to 18.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to make an
addition to this section. Its purpose is to make susceptible of being dealt with as juveniles in reformatories young persons of both sexes up to the age of 18 years; the present limit is 16 years. My own
observation and the widespread representations I have received have convinced me of the necessity of this modification. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the reformatory institutions of the provinces are not at present prepared to deal with this additional class of criminals, and persons quite competent to speak upon the subject have strongly
4 p.m. urged that until and unless proper preparations be made there may be danger to the younger inmates of those reformatories from association with those older boys and girls; in other words, that in order to protect the latter from the possible contamination with older prisoners in the penitentiaries, we might expose the younger children in the reformatories to contamination from these older boys and girls. In order to try to conciliate the two views, and to make provision for proper preparation being made for the reception of the class of criminals in question, I beg to move to amend section 1 by adding thereto as sub-section 2 thereof, the following words:
This section shall only come into operation in such province or provinces as the Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation prescribe.
This amendment will enable us to know that there are suitable institutions for this class of prisoners to be sent to before this law comes into force in a particular province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When we pass a criminal law do we look after the expense incident to the imprisonment of such persons as may be dealt with under its provisions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: By the British North America Act the maintenance of prisons and reformatories falls on the provinces, and the maintenance of penitentiaries falls on the Dominion; it is not a matter that depends upon our legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Part IX not to apply to Nova Scotia:	,
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most of this Bill seems to have special reference to Nova Scotia. Have there been any representations in this regard on the part of the Government of Nova Scotia?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The rest of the Act
deals entirely with Nova Scotia, is drafted by the provincial authorities and is being enacted at their request. It is to make

our present law adjust itself to the provisions made by Nova Scotia with regard to their reformatories. I may say that the provisions which they have adopted are, so far as they modify existing conditions, mainly with a view to assimilating their system with the systems prevailing in other provinces. This subject of reformatories is dealt with in different parts of the existing statute dealing with each of the provinces, and from time to time as a province finds it desirable to make certain modifications we modify our Act accordingly. This Bill is exclusively for that purpose and, as I say, is the drafting of the provincial authority itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-repeal:
Andrew Ross McMaster: Is there any provision for supervision over children who are indentured as provided by this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. Subsection 9 provides :
The Superintendent of Neglected and Delinquent Children for the.Provir.ee of Nova Scotia shall, subject to the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia, exercise and maintain supervision over every child after its discharge from a reformatory institution under the provisions of this section.
I would take it that that would apply to the child while he is in the custody of persons to whom he has been indentured.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did note that clause, but I was doubtful whether that applied to a child under indenture, because it seems to me the child had not been discharged when it was indentured.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman will turn to sub-clause (c), he will see that power is conferred upon the Superintendent of Neglected and Delinquent Children to order a child's return. I think that infers his power to supervise. From past experience, I know as a matter of fact, jhat the superintendents of this and similar institutions do exercise supervision and control. If they, who have that duty, find that these provisions are ample to enable them to carry it out, I think we may safely accept their view upon the subject. I would be a little loath to modify what they find perfectly sufficient, and I think it is a perfectly justifiable inference, from the fact that the superintendent has power to order the return of a child, that he must be in a position to inform himself on the subject. Furthermore, there is to be remembered just what the hon. gentleman has pointed out, that during that

period of time the child has never been discharged. He is in the custody of other people; but he is subject to be returned and, I should say, necessarily under the supervision of the authorities of the institution to which his sentence is ^till in full effect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can assure the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) that the practice is as has been explained by the minister. The superintendent has full control over those children and looks after them very carefully.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not doubt that everything is done in the best possible way, but it seemed to me that there should be no doubt about the matter. The children who are let out in this way, are, as a rule, very kindly looked after; but some distressing instances, exceptional, I must say, have occurred, and it seems to me that the law could not be too specific in providing for a regular supervision of homes in which children under the care of the State are placed for their own benefit. Might I direct the minister's attention to subclause (e) which reads:
Any wages reserved in any indenture under the provisions of this section shall he paid to such child or to some person for such child's benefit.
That is delightfully vague. I do not quite know who is to be the judge as to what person shall be entitled to receive this money for the child's benefit. Perhaps practice has made the matter less objectionable than it appears at first sight.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should take it that the superintendent or other person in charge would see to it that the money went to a suitable person. I would rather not undertake to modify this, for an additional reason, that, with all respect to those who have asked us to enact that provision, I am really very strongly of the impression that that provision, being a provision with regard to the manner in which people sentenced to a reformatory institution are to be dealt with, and being 'a matter of dealing with their property, the provincial legislature was perhaps more competent to decide than we are. We properly ought to deal with the criminal end of the matter, and this coming to us from what really rather strikes me as the proper authority to decide what shall be done with the property of persons and particularly of persons in their own provincial institutions. I would- hardly feel called upon to modify it, and my view would

be that the provincial legislature might have settled that question itself. I would say, however, that it is for greater precaution that we are asked to concur in the matter.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The next question
which I have to ask the minister is rather theological in character. This Bill provides for Protestants and Roman Catholics.
I have met certain English Church people who say that they are not Protestants. I do not think they are Roman Catholics. Perhaps some Nova Scotian member would enlighten the committee what happens to people of that denomination if they have delinquent children.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will refer the hon. gentleman to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. I may say in a general way that the definition, not only in that province, but in provinces generally has been found to work without difficulty.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In the form of commitment, what does "S.S." stand for? I have often been intrigued by those letters and I have never had any satisfactory explanation. It is a pleasure to be able to apply to the fountain head of judicial learning.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall have to refer
that to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. I am ignorant as to the meaning.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Does it not mean the
plural of "seal?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may be, only why there would be a plurality of seals, I do not know. I would be curious to know what it means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Sturdy
Scotchman."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think a sturdy Scotchman would never get into trouble of that kind. I would like to move one amendment to this clause. It will not change the substance of the law, but it is to make the particular definition of "child" in this Act compare with the definition in the Juvenile Delinquent Act, not merely as it stands at the present moment, because now it provides for an age of sixteen, and I think it desirable that with regard to all the different reformatories the definition of child should be the same. While there is in the Juvenile Delinquents Act a definition of child which presently fixes the age limit upwards at age sixteen, there is in contemplation an amendment to make it conform with an amendment which we have already made in this Act. Therefore, in order that we may secure uniformity, I move:
That sub-clause (a) of clause 3 be amended by striking out in line 30 on page 1 of the Bill the following words "a boy or girl under the age of eighteen years", and substituting the words" a child as defined by section 2 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, chapter 40 of the Statutes of 1908."
That will leave it at the present time that a child will be limited to sixteen years. If we amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act to raise the age to eighteen, the effect will be to raise the age under this Act, or if in the application of the previous provision of this measure, the word "child" is made to include persons up to eighteen, that will apply in this case. If there should be no change in the law, the present age of sixteen will stand. This is one of the institutions which pointed out that they were not, at all events at the present time, prepared to deal with children above sixteen years of age. This clause was not inserted by them but by us, to make the section such that if a general modification should be determined upon it would apply to them also. That is the purpose for which I seek to make the present amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that subsection 2 of section 3 uses the phrase "the laws of Canada." Is it intended to differentiate between the law of Canada and provincial laws?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be disposed to think that it is intended to mean the laws of Canada, that is, the laws of the Dominion of Canada- If it were a matter of dealing with violations of the provincial law, it would be for the provincial authority to say to what place the person convicted may be sentenced. We only undertake to determine what sentences shall be imposed and where they shall be executed, in cases of offences against our law. In the case of offences against a purely provincial law, that law would prescribe where the person convicted should be sent.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.



INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 73, to authorize the ratification and carry-
[Stage Direction]
ing into effect of the Proctocol of the sixteenth day of December, 1920, accepting the Statute for the Permanent Court of International'Justice of the thirteenth day of December, 1920.-Right Hon. Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee clause 1 had been under consideration for an entire evening. It had been amended by replacing the word " ratify " in the first line of the said clause by the following words, "advised that His Majesty he humbly moved to ratify on behalf of Canada." Shall clause 1 be carried?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood that the Bill stood in committee to afford opportunity for more careful examination of the schedule. We really had threshed out both sections very fully, I think. The Bill has now stood for a considerable period of time. I postponed taking it up on one occasion at the request of hon. gentlemen, and I would suggest that the Bill be now allowed to go through.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The language of the amendment comes before us, I think, for the first in the history of this Parliament. I have no recollection of ever seeing that language in any legislation passed in my time, namely, that the King be moved to do a certain thing. I rather thought that in theory the making of treaties was the act of the Sovereign, and that a motion was therefore not necessary, that all that would be expected of us would be to ratify or concur in the act of His Majesty. From that standpoint, I am not quite satisfied with the language.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may say that when it was a matter of our advising the ratification of the German Treaty and the other treaties, the matter was then looked into as to what was the accepted form for the addressing of advice of that kind to His Majesty, and it was found that the accepted form was, to humbly move His Majesty to be pleased to take this action. It is, quite true, as I understand it, at all events, that constitutionally the ratifying power is in His Majesty; certainly there is no legal requirement that there should be any action by this House. But, with regard to certain classes of treaties, a practice has grown up in the past which has made it constitutional to ask for authority to ratify from a popular body.
I am not prepared to say that perhaps 
this particular treaty would come within that class, but as I said the other evening, it seemed to us sound democratic policy to bring every treaty of any consequence to this House for its consideration when that is conveniently possible, and we have adopted that course in this case. That will involve the Governor in Council addressing to His Majesty the document that evidences the ratification, and we have put it in what we understand to be the usual form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 and schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous disbursements for Railways and Canals chargeable to Income, 5166,284,290.72.
Georges Henri Boivin: Before this resolution is submitted to the committee, if the hon. minister and the members of the committee are agreeable, the Chairman desires to make a suggestion which can be adopted only by unanimous consent. The suggestion is that full and entire latitude be given to the committee in discussing the present item, No. 126, and that any question concerning railways be in order on that item, with the understanding that when this item is carried, it will carry with it items, 113, which refers to rolling stock, and 341, which has reference to the Canadian National railways.


Mr. PARENT:: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this does not seem fair to the committee. It happens on Friday afternoon that very few members are in the committee, and possibly if it had been known that this item 126 would be discussed, more members would be here today. I think we should follow the ordinary procedure and take up the items as they come, one by one. The public interest will be best served if we do that.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman
pointed out that his proposal could be adopted only by the unanimous consent of the committee. As there appears to be some objection to this course, it will be necessary to take up the items one by one, and it will be incumbent upon the Chairman, as far as possible, to keep the discussion strictly relevant to the subject matter of the item under consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: W;li tie Minister of Railways say what is the purpose of devolving tens-I was about to say hundreds -of millions of dollars, and grouping them all together? That is not good management of the public business. A great many items are included in this one. and they should be separated, so that the committee might discuss each on its merits, being at liberty to vote for one, and against another. I do not know why the minister should group them all in this one comprehensive item occupying two-thirds of the first page on which it appears, the whole of the second page, and a large portion of the third. This is not a proper way in which to submit the Estimates for the consideration of Parliament.


Hon. Mr. REID:: I did not make out the list as it appears before the committee. The items in connection with the railways were sent to the Finance Department, and authorized to be printed in their present form. We sent the list to them. However, I cannot see that there is room for difficulty, because this one vote is divided into different sections, and as I understand the procedure, we shall have to take them up item by item. For instance, the first item under No. 126, is provision of $2,000 for Arbitrations and Awards and Costs of Litigation, and we shall take that up now.


Mr. STEVENS:: You cannot vote for it separately.


John Dowsley Reid: Any hon. member
might move to strike it out.
Mr. FIELDING My hon. friend, I am afraid, lays himself open to the charge of what is sometimes described in other places where they venerate things less than we do, as "passing the buck"- blaming some one else for his own omission. I say that the present form of submitting these Estimates is bad, and should be corrected, and I suggest now, as the only remedy, if the Chairman will consent, that we deal with each of these various sections of the item-some of the subitems are very lengthy-individually.	I
move that we take them up separately, confining ourselves to each item. Because, it is not fair to ask Parliament to vote these enormous sums of money in bulk, by one vote under one resolution.


John Dowsley Reid: I had no intention of passing the buck at all; I assume full responsibility for everything in connection with my department. As regards the
present form of this vote, I may say that this is the way these items have always been submitted to the House; but as we are about to take them up one by one,
I see no reason for objection.


Georges Henri Boivin: When several items are included in one resolution in the Estimates any hon. member has the perfect right to make the motion just made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that those items be considered separately. I may point out that when several items included in the same resolution are thus considered separately, it is quite competent for an hon. member to move to strike out any particular item. The Chairman has previously ruled that a motion to strike out an item from the Estimates is not in order. This ruling applies c-nly when there is not more than one item in a separate resolution, because a motion to strike out the item would then be a negative motion. When, however, there are several items in the same resolution, hon. members may move to strike out any individual item. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's moves that Resolution 126 be considered item by item. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arbitrations and Awards and Costs of Litigation, $2,000.
John Dowsley Reid: This is an annual vote to 'provide for the payment of law costs, etc., in connection 'with arbitrations and judicial awards not anticipated or otherwise provided for. Nothing was spent in this direction last year, and this vote is intended to meet any cases that may arise.


Georges Parent: Whereabouts in the
Auditor General's Report does the expenditure in connection with this item appear?


John Dowsley Reid: Nothing was spent
last year and consequently there is nothing in the Auditor General's Report in connection with this item.


Georges Parent: What was the reason
for the vote last year, why was it not expended, and why is it necessary again this year?


John Dowsley Reid: We are asking for the vote because occasionally the need for this expenditure may arise.


Lucien Cannon: Why is it not indicated as a re-vote?


John Dowsley Reid: It was thought that between January and March 31, last, there might be a possibility of some of the money being expended.


Lucien Cannon: Then the department
still has this money at its disposal?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the vote lapsed on March 31. Whenever the vote lapses we must insert it again in the Estimates each year.


Georges Parent: After the experience of last year why was it necessary to repeat the vote?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote has been in the Estimates for a good many years. An arbitration may take place at any time and we must have this vote to meet the expenditure.


Georges Parent: The item reads "miscellaneous works not provided for." If the minister can point out one single work carried out by the National Railways which does not involve a cost of more than $2,000 I will be very glad to hear his statement.


John Dowsley Reid: This item represents arbitrations and awards and possible litigation. It has nothing at all to do with the Canadian National Railways; it relates solely to the department. If the item had reference to arbitrations and awards in connection with the National Railways it would appear in the National Railways vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: Maintenance and Operation of, $206,060.
John Dowsley Reid: Of this vote $159,760 is required for the salaries of the staff as compared with $154,890 for the fiscal year ending March 31, last; official reporting, $11,800; official car, including the salary of a porter, $3,800; printing, $2,900; stationery, $3,800; telegraph and telephone, $2,000; board and staff's travelling expenses, $12,000; contingencies, $10,000. The only change is in the salaries of the staff, and that is accounted for by the application of the reclassification.


Mr. CAHILL:: Are the findings of the Railway Commission laid on the table of the House at any time?


John Dowsley Reid: The annual report of the commission was laid on the table a short time ago; it consisted, I think, of three or four large volumes.
TMr. Cannon.]


Frank S. Cahill: Does that report contain the findings of the commission in regard to the increased railway rates and the evidence taken before the commission in that connection?


John Dowsley Reid: It does not give the evidence, as I understand, but according to my recollection does contain a summary of the decisions rendered.


Frank S. Cahill: Where can we get a copy of the evidence referred to?


John Dowsley Reid: That evidence is public property. One could obtain it by applying to the Secretary of the Railway Commission, Mr. Cartwright.


Frank S. Cahill: Doesn't the minister think that printed reports of that kind should be laid on the table, or at least typewritten copies, so that members could have access to them from time to time? It is impossible for a member to go down to the office of the commission and sit there and read the evidence through. On the other hand if it were made available here he could make good use of it.


John Dowsley Reid: I am afraid the making of typewritten copies of the evidence given in each case would involve a lot of work and cause a great deal of expense, and in the long run very few of the reports might be asked for. If any hon. member desires to have a copy of such report, or any other person, it would be desirable to write the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Frank S. Cahill: I made application for a copy of the evidence in the rates increase case and was referred to some gentleman in Toronto who would furnish it to me for a certain price. I think when the minister is expending millions of dollars on these railways the extra cost of getting a copy, or copies, of this evidence for the rfecords of the House, or for reference purposes of members, would be very trifling.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course if these reports are asked for while the House is in session they will be obtained and laid on the table. When the House is not in session and members require reports it is a rather different matter. Then it would not be unfair to ask members, or the public, to pay the actual cost of preparing such reports.
Mr. <3ANNON: Who are the members of the Railway Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Carvell is the
chairman, and Mr. McLean, the vice-

chairman; the other members are Mr. Boyce, Mr. Nantel and Mr. Rutherford. I think there is one vacancy.


Lucien Cannon: This commission is in
no way under the jurisdiction of the minister, is it?	'


John Dowsley Reid: No. There is a right
of appeal to the Governor in Council from any decision of the commission; that is all the jurisdiction the Government has over its actions.


Lucien Cannon: I should like to draw
the attention of the minister to the rather extraordinary situation which arises from the fact that the chairman of the Railway Commission in his travels throughout the country speaks officially in his capacity as chairman. If I am not mistaken, a few weeks ago he was out West and there made some rather strenuous statements-'according to his habit of speaking which always was strenuous. As a matter of fact, he got into rather sharp conflict with the Minister of Labour. When such a situation arises, has the minister control over the chairman, or does that gentleman represent simply his own personal views?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand, he
was speaking for himself. He certainly did not speak for my department.


Georges Parent: What railways come
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


John Dowsley Reid: All railways that have been declared for the general advantage of Canada.


Georges Parent: I mean the Canadian
Government railways.


John Dowsley Reid: There is the Canadian
Northern Railway system and its subsidiaries ; also -the Grand Trunk, if we take it over-


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Grand Trunk is
under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, anyway.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, that is what I
say. The Intercolonial and the Transcontinental will not legally come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission until the Canadian National Railways Act has been brought into force. Pending that, the Railway Department notified the Board of Railway Commissioners to treat those railways as if they actually were under their jurisdiction. In other words, if any person had any complaint against those lines he could make it to the Board of
Railway Commissioners, and the decision of the board would be confirmed by the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Georges Parent: Is that done by Order
in Council?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the minister has
power in cases of that kind. Let me give the hon. member a case to explain what I mean. Suppose an application came in for a farm crossing, we would ask the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with it, and we would confirm their decision; or if the application was made direct to the Board of Railway Commissioners, they would notify the management of the Canadian National railways of their decision, and the latter would carry it out as though the Canadian National railways were actually under the jurisdiction of the board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend
take this occasion to explain the divergence of opinion between him and one of his former employees-I refer to Mr. Payne- regarding the railway deficit this year?


John Dowsley Reid: When we started on
these items it was understood that we would deal with each item separately, and the item under consideration relates simply to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think we had better adhere to that understanding.


Georges Parent: When the Board of Railway Commissioners were sitting at the city of Quebec three or four months ago I presented a petition signed by the people of a certain parish in my constituency, to the effect that if the commission placed an agent at a certain station the Government railways would be better off to the extent of $15,000 a year. The line in question in that particular case was the Transcontinental railway. Mr. Carvell stated that the commission had no jurisdiction, and I was inclined to agree with this view. Now I am at a loss to find out which is really correct, the chief commissioner or the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember rightly, I wrote a letter to the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners when Sir Henry Drayton was chairman and gave him those instructions, and it was some time after Mr. Carvell was appointed chairman that some one did have trouble such as the hon. member has mentioned and drew my attention to it. I took it up with Mr. Carvell and he said he had never heard of the instructions that I had given. I then

drew his attention to it by letter and received a reply from him stating that of course the commission would carry out those instructions. I am satisfied that if the hon. member has a similar case to bring before the Railway Commission now he will have no difficulty on the score of jurisdiction. The hon. member, of course, will appreciate that the time is very near now when the Canadian National Railways Act will be brought into force, and under that Act the Intercolonial and Transcontinental railways automatically come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Georges Parent: I am glad to hear the explanation given by the minister. But the case I have in mind is much simpler. Fifteen miles outside the city of Quebec the Transcontinental railway runs through the parish of St. Augustin, but no agent has ever been placed in charge of the station built in that parish. The citizens of that parish presented to the Board of Railway Commissioners not very long ago a petition in which exporters and importers at that place set forth in detail the amounts which they exported or imported in a year, giving the names and complete information, the amounts ranging from $200 to $1,000, $1,500, and so on. They showed that they were paying in freight at least $1,700 a year and they pointed out that if an agent was placed at that station the Government would make at least $15,000 a year. This petition was presented not very long ago at the city of Quebec, after I had tried, but without success, to have the matter attended to by applying to the Canadian National railways. The answer given to the petition by the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners was that they had no jurisdiction over such eases. Where, then, are the people of Canada to go in matters of this kind? If you go to the Government, they turn you aside; if you go to the Board of Railway Commissioners, they say they have no jurisdiction. To whom can the people go with a proposal under which the Government, by spending $2,000 a year would make a profit of at least $15,000 a year-and at a time when the Government railways are showing a loss?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will write me a note I will bring the matter to the attention of the management of the Canadian National railways and ask them to give it consideration. If their decision is not satisfactory-and this is the pro-

cedure with other railway companies as well; in the case of the Canadian Pacific the same thing would be done-I will have the matter taken up by the Board of Railway Commissioners, upon whose decision the board of management must act.


Georges Parent: I will give the hon. gentleman another example; it is just as well that the public should know these things. In that very same parish the Canadian Pacific has had an agent for fifteen or twenty years; but since the making of the application to which I have referred the Canadian Pacific have applied to have their agent withdrawn. The minister can draw his own conclusion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This House has appointed a Special Committee to consider the question of Canada's fuel supply. I notice that Hon. Mr. Carvell was interviewed by several deputations at Winnipeg on that very important question, and it was suggested that if there was a fair reduction of freight rates on coal-during the summer season only, so as to give way to the grain trade in the fall-that would be a practical solution of the problem of coal supply for the West. Mr. Carvell has returned and I would like to know whether the commission has come to any conclusion with regard to the suggestions made by western boards of trade on that subject.


John Dowsley Reid: I noticed something in the newspapers to the effect that 'it was the intention of the chairman of the Railway Commission to submit to his colleagues upon his return all the evidence and information obtained at the different points. He has only been home a few days, and I understand that so far no action has been taken.


Mr. FORTIER:: I understand that there is a French secretary as well as an English secretary for the Railway Commission. What are their names and their respective salaries?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Cartwright is the English secretary and Mr. Primeau is the assistant secretary. Mr. Cartwright gets $5,000 a year; under the Railway Act as amended his salary was put at that amount. Mr. Primeau gets $3,200, according to information given on page W-57 of the Auditor-General's report.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Mr. Pirmeau was a
member of the Montreal bar, having been a law partner of Hon. Mr. Coderre, one time a colleague of the hon. minister. He

has wide knowledge and experience; his responsibilities and duties are similar to those of the English secretary, and I do not see why his salary should not be the same as that paid to Mr. Cartwright. I hope the minister will see that these salaries are put on the same basis.


John Dowsley Reid: Possibly Mr. Primeau's salary has been increased by the classification. Of course, this matter is out of the hands of the department; it is dealt with by the Civil Service Commission.


Lucien Cannon: Does Mr. Nantel sit with the Railway Commission now?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, he works hard every day.


Mr. ROSS:: I understand that there is a vacancy on the board. Is it the intention of the Government to fill that vacancy, or is it not thought that five commissioners are sufficient to do all the work which comes before the board?


John Dowsley Reid: I would have to consider that.


James Hamilton Ross: Has the Cabinet considered it?


John Dowsley Reid: We have been very
busy with these Estimates.


James Hamilton Ross: This is a very important matter. There used to be seven members on this board, I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the number is six now. There is a vacancy at present.


James Hamilton Ross: I want just a straight
answer from the minister if they have considered the matter.
Hon. x Mr. REID:	We have not considered the matter up to the present time.


James Hamilton Ross: Does the minister think it is necessary to fill the vacancy?


John Dowsley Reid: If I did not think it was necessary, I would not have it filled.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not believe the people of this country think it is necessary to fill the vacancy. There is not work for six commissioners, and it is an unnecessary expense to impose on the country to have six commissioners when there is not work for six. With the heavy debt with which this country is burdened, that is one of the expenditures which it might be wise to cut down.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was one of those who supported the appointment of six commissioners. This commission was created under the previous Government. I can only give my opinion for what it is worth; my opinion -and it is just as strong as that of the hon. member-is that there should be six men on that commission. Therefore, I say that the naming of six men originally was in the interest of the country.


James Hamilton Ross: I have great respect for the minister's opinion, and I always have had; but to say that, because six men were appointed originally, when the work of the commission was in its initial stages and it was getting organized, and making new rules, and when there may have been work for six men, six men are necessary to do the work now when a great deal of the work has become routine work, is not very sound argument. My contention is that there is not work on the commission now for six men, and in the interest of economy this vacancy should not be filled.


William Stevens Fielding: How and when did the vacancy occur?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Goodeve, one of the members, died some months ago, I do not know the date.


William Stevens Fielding: If the commission has been able to get along with five members, and there is no urgency about the matter, the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Ross) would have some ground for saying that the additional member is not necessary.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member, (Mr. Fielding) during the years while he was in office, I suppose, had many cases where a vacancy in a court remained unfilled for months and yet the work was carried on. Other judges may have had to work a little harder, and the same is probably true in this case.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister is not
very happy in his illustration. The courts are determined by the provincial legislatures which determine the number of judges.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member
knows that the Government at Ottawa fills the vacancy.


William Stevens Fielding: But the number is decided by the Provincial Government, and the Government at Ottawa have nothing to do with the number. I am glad of the admiration which the minister expresses for what was done by the Laurier Government, although he is a little late in

expressing it. When these things were done by the Laurier Government, my hon. . friend and his friends were the most severe critics. Now my hon. friend shields himself behind what was done by the Laurier Government.


John Dowsley Reid: We were always glad to support everything that we thought was in the interest of the country. In this particular case, I supported the Bili creating the Board of Railway Commissioners. I remember when the Bill came in, and I am glad that at that time my hon. friend and myself agreed.	.


Lucien Cannon: A few months ago the commercial interests of the city of Quebec, after having tried' for a long time, succeeded in having the Railway Commission visit our city so that the representatives of the Government and the commercial people of Quebec might discuss before the Railway Commission the improvement of the railway situation at large. If I am not mistaken, it was understood at that time that the discussion was to take place between representatives of the Government and these interested parties. Much to the surprise of the public in general and especially of the commercial interests, the Canadian Pacific railway was very largely represented through attorneys and otherwise, and most of the discussion took place through the representatives of the Canadian Pacific. The whole situation was reviewed; the Railway Commission apparently took a very keen interest in the debates which took place, but since then we have never heard a word from the commission. No decision of any kind has been rendered, and the situation remains in exactly the same position as it was then. The minister, earlier in the afternoon, in answer to a question, told me that he had no control over this commission in the way of changing its decisions or anything of that sort; but I would be very anxious to accept the friendly offers, made by the minister frequently while he is passing his Estimates, to do whatever he can for us on this side of the House. About half an hour ago he offered my deskmate, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) to send a note to the Canadian National railways to try to settle up a difficulty which existed in my hon. friend's constituency.
I should be glad if the great influence of the minister could be brought to bear upon the Railway Commission, so that we might get some decision and that the Quebec people might know, some time before the

end of the year, if possible, exactly where . we stand. That would be only fair, especially when we see by the item before the committee the enormous amount of money which is spent every year to pay for the Railway Commission and the staff, in order that it may give proper service and satisfaction to the people. What is the use of having a commission and going to all the trouble which was gone to in the city of Quebec, by both the Railway Commission and the people at large, if, after a hearing of that importance, no decision is rendered?


John Dowsley Reid: I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and ask him what the situation is in connection with the matter which the hon. member has mentioned. As I stated, decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners are made entirely independent of the department. I will get a reply from the chairman as to exactly what the situation is in connection with the matter and will let the hon. member know.


Georges Parent: Just this morning I
heard a committee member from British Columbia state that when they wanted members of the board to go and study questions in their part of the country, they could never get them to go to that province. Representatives from British Columbia have to travel to Ottawa in order to appear before the commission. Is there any way in which the commission can be compelled to visit a province like British Columbia?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know that there is any way in which we can compel them to go. I do not know whether there is anything in the Act to force them to go to any particular part of the country; but I have always found that if any matter is of great or sufficient importance, the commission will go to any part of Canada. They do go through all parts of Canada. They have, as the hon. member knows, officials whom they send to any place where there is a complaint and where it is necessary that some one should go. I would hardly think that if a case were put up to them where the commission should go and attend personally to a matter, they would not go. If the hon. member has any ease of sufficient importance that he thinks they should have gone, and they did not go, I should be very glad to bring it to the attention of the

commission. When the facts warrant it, the commission will take the evidence and look the situation over.


Mr. CRERAR:: As far as filling the
vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners is concerned, I was going to suggest to the Minister that we could probably get along very well without filling it, and save the expense. My own view has been that three members on the Board of Railway Commissioners, with the staff they have should be quite sufficient to discharge all the work that the Board has to do. As a matter of fact I think in the past the active work of the board has really devolved on two or three commissioners. I would earnestly commend to the Minister of Railways that he might well save a few thousand dollars by leaving this vacancy unfilled. In my judgment a board of three commissioners will function just as well as a board of six, and this is not a time when we can think of lightly spending money that it is not absolutely necessary to expend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: to pay expenses in connection with cases before the Board, $5,000.
Arthur Bliss Copp: What is that for?


John Dowsley Reid: This is to provide for the payment of counsel, expenses, and so forth, in any case in which the department might require to have a representative before the Railway Commission. Previous to 1920-21 an amount of $15,000 was in the Estimates for this purpose. We have reduced that to $5,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What was spent last year?


John Dowsley Reid: Nothing. The item
is Only there in case something might turn up where it would be necessary to engage counsel.


Lucien Cannon: By the Government or by the commission?


John Dowsley Reid: By the commission.


Lucien Cannon: Would the railway commissioners have to do with the payment of counsel?


John Dowsley Reid: Some case might arise where they would require special counsel.


Georges Parent: My hon. friend from
Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) mentioned that whenever a case comes before the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Canadian Pacific is always represented by counsel. Are we to infer that the Canadian Government railways also want to have their counsel present in the same way?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian National railways would have to pay their own separate counsel. This is only in connection with the commission itself.


Lucien Cannon: How the commission
itself? Has not the commission on its staff somebody in a position to give legal advice? We have just voted $206,000 for the staff. Am I to understand that there is nobody on that staff in a position to give legal advice to the commission?


John Dowsley Reid: There might be a case between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern, for instance, in which the public should be represented, and where it would be in the public interest that the commission should have an independent counsel. In cases of that kind they would have to engage counsel, but it is only in exceptional cases. The appropriation is very seldom used.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to show any lack of proper consideration for the Minister, but when he gives an explanation such as he has just given to the committee, I think the members have a perfect right to smile, and smile broadly. The minister said that counsel might be engaged in cases where it was in the public interest for the railway commission to do so, and he instanced a case between the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific.


John Dowsley Reid: They both might appear before the commission.


Lucien Cannon: But the people of this country are paying millions of dollars every year for their railways; either this railway is ours or it is not.


John Dowsley Reid: There might be a case in connection with the Grand Trunk.


Lucien Cannon: The minister did not
suggest the Grand Trunk, but even if he had, his argument would be no more applicable. For the last three or four years this House has been voting millions of dollars to acquire railroads. Every year the amount we have to pay increases and the Minister of Railways, who spends that money to buy railways-he certainly did spend the money, and I hope he has bought something with it-now comes before the committee this afternoon and tells us that we do not own the railway. I think that the people of this country are entitled to a clear explanation from the minister. If this railway belongs to us, the Government



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
can protect their own railway, and we do not need to vote $5,000 or $10,000 or even five xents for special counsel. We have the Department of Justice, and counsel attached to the Railway Department. If the minister seriously makes the declaration that the railways do not belong to us, but are absolutely independent of the Government and their interests different from those of the Government, I think the people of this country will have something to say to the Government.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the minister
give a concrete case, or even a hypothetical case, where this money might be used? Candidly, I do not understand just for what purpose it is to be used.


John Dowsley Reid: In answer to the hon.
member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), if it was a case in connection with the Canadian National Railways they would pay their own counsel; the money would not come out of this vote at all; but there are cases where it might be in the public interest to engage outside counsel.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For instance?


John Dowsley Reid: There might be a
telephone rate case, or something of that kind, where the public should be represented other than by the officials of the commission. This vote has been used in years past, and it is thought well to keep it there to protect the public.


Lucien Cannon: When was the last
case?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member
wishes me to give some better explanation, I would suggest that the item stand and I would ask the Chairman of the Commission to furnish me with more details.


Alexander William Chisholm: Has this item been
used in one instance?


John Dowsley Reid: My deputy tells me
that it was used three years ago.


Lucien Cannon: In what case?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say at the
moment, but if the hon. member wants concrete cases, we can let the item stand until after dinner, and I can get the information from the commission.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to have the explanation now. I do not want to be unjust to the minister. He does not know everything, but what he does not know, his

help here ought to know. When he comes before this committee, I think we are entitled to a satisfactory explanation, and I think we should have it now. The minister is a very clever man, in a way. Whenever de does not give an explanation, he proposes that we should go and have dinner, knowing that after our dinner is over our digestions may not be in good order and we may forget about the explanation. I want that explanation now, not after dinner, and I think it is only fair that the minister should give it. The minister has right next to him his chief engineer and the deputy minister, who knows all about the railway situation in Canada and the Railway Commission. My hon friend, a moment ago, told us that one concrete instance in which this item might be applied would be the case where the Canadian Northern might be before the commission. His second statement nullified the first, because he said it would not apply in such cases. When I asked the minister to state a real instance of this application, he said it would apply when a telephone case was before the commission. Why should it apply particularly when a telephone case is before the commission? Would it be because, when a telephone company is [DOT] before the commission, some of the commissioners cannot sit? We ought to know.
I am a lawyer, accustomed to pleading before the courts, and as a rule, whenever a question arises before a court, parties interested are represented by counsel and the tribunal has not to pay extra counsel. Generally the parties interested have too much representation.


William Stevens Fielding: I am going to come to the aid of the minister. I have a hazy recollection of circumstances arising which led to this vote being originally proposed. You do not want any special vote for the Canadian Northern, or the Canadian Pacific, or the Grand Trunk, or a telephone company, or any of the big corporations; they are always represented before the Railway Commission. But I think it was alleged that sometimes a public interest is developed which is not represented before the commission, the case of some person who is not able to employ expensive counsel, and it was thought well to make provision for such cases.


Georges Parent: If the Minister of Railways had made such a statement as we have just heard, there would have been no objection to the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Contribution to International Association of Railways Congress-$97.33.
Lucien Cannon: Who got the money
under this vote last year?


John Dowsley Reid: The International Association of Railways was established in 1882, and its object is to further all matters particularly connected with the progress of railway communication, by uniting in one association the railway administration of states and public companies in all parts of the world. This has been an annual vote.


Lucien Cannon: I have no objection
whatever to the vote, and I must congratulate the person, whoever he may be, to whom this money is paid, for the moderation of his expenses. I trust that whenever the Government is called upon to appoint a delegate this gentleman will be chosen. He is most reasonable, and I hope that the results he obtains will exceed in value the expenses he entails.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commissioner of Highways. To provide for the organization and payment of staff to Commissioner of Highways, including A. W. Campbell, C.E., as Commissioner of Highways at $5,000 per annum, $53,000.
John Dowsley Reid: The following is a list of salaries and expenses:
Commissioner	$ 5,000
Secretary and two clerk stenographers 2,010
Messengers	 300
Chief Engineer	 6,000
Senior draftsman	 2,220
Two clerks	 3'660
Inspecting Engineer, Quebec	 3,300
Inspecting Engineer, New Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island	 3,000
Inspecting Engineer, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta	 3,600
Stenographer	 1,020
Total	$30,110
Expenses Inspecting Engineer, Quebec,
rent and expenses	 600
Inspecting Engineer, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, rent and
expenses	  600
Inspecting Engineer, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, expenses.. ..	300
Travelling Allowances	 10,000
One motor, (Quebec) Inspector	 2,000
One motor, Maritime Provinces inspector	 2,000
One motor, Western inspector	 2,000
One motor, Ontario inspector	 3,000
Printing and stationery	  1,000
Total	$21,500
Unforeseen	$ 1,390
Grand Total	$53,000
192|


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has
mentioned inspectors in connection with several provinces; he has mentioned Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba. He has not said anything about Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia.


John Dowsley Reid: Ottawa is headquarters for Ontario. The men here do the inspecting for this province, and save' an engineer's expenses.


Alexander William Chisholm: What about Nova
Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: We had a Mr. Henry, and now Mr. Woss.


Alexander William Chisholm: What salary is paid this man?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Woss is not in this list because he was temporarily employed after Mr. Henry's resignation.


Alexander William Chisholm: You have provided automobiles for inspectors in some provinces, and not in others. I do not understand this.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: We have not a special amount for an inspector for Nova Scotia. We have an inspector for New Brunswick, and he has been assisted by Mr. Woss. We shall have to ask for an inspector for Nova Scotia in the Supplementary Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: I take it that the work done by the Government of Nova Scotia is so satisfactory that they do not need to employ any one to watch it, and we accept the compliment. Has not Mr. Campbell the rank of a deputy minister? If so, why .does he not get the same salary?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Campbell occupies the position of Commissioner of Highways. That is the title that was given him, and he gets the salary that was fixed for the position.


William Stevens Fielding: Has he not the rank of a deputy?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is an increase in this item from $25,000 to $53,000. I presume there has been a reorganization of the department since last year to account for that increase.


John Dowsley Reid: There was not very much work done last year; and, as the hon. member will have observed from the statement I read, one large item is the sum of

$9,000 for motors. Inspection work in all provinces is on a larger scale than it was a year ago and requires a larger expenditure.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the motors make a
difference of only $9,000. Has there been a reorganization of the office and staff since last year? I want to know what accounts for the increase.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year we only had Mr. Grant at the time the vote was passed. The others came on later in the year and we have to provide for their salaries. The work had not been really organized or got very far ahead and the engineers of the department handled it and kept the organization moving. Then we appointed permanent inspectors and their salaries in full are required for the year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who is the inspector for
the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and when was he appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Dick is the inspector for the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. He is an engineer and was employed on railway construction.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On the Quebec and
Saguenay.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes on the construction of the Quebec and Saguenay railway.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is he a former resident of
the province of New Brunswick?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say.


Georges Parent: What is the amount of
the Budget that will be at the disposal of the Commissioner of Highways?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will
recall, of course, that a vote of $20,000,000 was passed. Each province is entitled to its share of that, and the commissioner and his staff will have supervision of the expenditure. The money has to be expended within a period of five years. Some provinces will perhaps expend more of the proportion allotted to them in a year, and others will perhaps expend less. The staff must supervise and audit the expenditure and see that it is made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.


Georges Parent: I would imagine that
the Commissioner of Highways, who is to have the control of the expenditure of such a large amount of money, should be paid a larger salary than $5,000 a year. Although not in favour of lavish expendi-

ture I should think that a professional man, such as a civil engineer, who occupies such a responsible position, should be paid a larger salary, and if the minister wishes to do justice to an efficient official he should see to it that his salary is more commensurate with the responsible duties which he discharges.


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister be
good enough to tell the committee what amounts, out of this $20,000,000, have already been expended, what amounts are to be expended this year, whether any balance will remain after this year's outlays, and, if so, what that balance will amount to?


John Dowsley Reid: The money has been divided as follows among the provinces: Prince .Edward Island, $603,455; Nova Scotia, $1,468,720; New Brunswick, $1,163,845; Quebec, $4,748,420; Ontario, $5,877,275; Manitoba, $1,602,265; Saskatchewan, $1,806,255; Alberta, $1,477,810; British Columbia, $1,251,955. As to the expenditures already made they were given in reply to a question put in the House on April 12. It shows that Ontario had received $295,100 of its share; British Columbia had received $86,446.52; Prince Edward Island, $40,264.79; and Quebec had received up to that time $56,374.19, but a day or two afterwards additional payments made raised the total to $109,000.


Lucien Cannon: Those are the expenditures for the last two years?


John Dowsley Reid: From the time the
Act came into force up to the present.


Lucien Cannon: Then there was not
half a million dollars spent?


John Dowsley Reid: There was not anything paid last year; there was very little work done. But these highways are all under way now, and from this time forward the expenditures will be made in larger amounts and at a much faster rate.


Lucien Cannon: What are the estimated expenditures for this year? It strikes me as rather extraordinary that we should maintain a large staff and provide them with salaries and automobiles, when only half a million dollars has been spent in two years, unless there has been a change in policy.


John Dowsley Reid: There was very little expenditure last year on the staff and organization, but the commissioner tells me that, as nearly as he can estimate, we

shall have to pay about $2,500,000 this year. But the provinces may rush the work on at a much faster rate, in which case we will pay our proportion of the expenditure.


Lucien Cannon: How will that $2,500,000 be distributed among the provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not got that precise information but it will be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act.


Lucien Cannon: Have there been any
pressing demands for this money from the different provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: Every province is taking up its full amount, there is no doubt about that. The provinces are all carrying on work that will use up every dollar they are entitled to under this Act.


Lucien Cannon: Apparently not. Judging by the figures given by the minister a little less than half a million dollars has been expended up to date. This year the minister estimates that his expenditure will amount to $2,500,000, or a total of about $3,000,000, so that the requests from the different provinces cannot be very pressing when there is such a small expenditure out of a total of $20,000,000 at their disposal.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the hon. member that the first year after the Act had gone into effect the provinces had to prepare their plans and locate the works to be constructed. As a result of that the calls for money did not involve a considerable amount. Now these works are going ahead pretty fast, and there is not any doubt at all the provinces will use every dollar to which they are entitled within the period of five years during which the Act is effective.


Lucien Cannon: In the minister's opinion would it not be a very good policy for the Government to cut out this expenditure altogether?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course the hon.
member knows that the policy of Parliament decided the making of these agreements. Under those agreements works have been undertaken that will require every dollar of the money to be granted, and it would be impossible now to cut out these grants.


Lucien Cannon: Does the minister mean that an agreement has been signed between the Federal Government and every province?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister say when the agreement with the province of Quebec was signed?


John Dowsley Reid: We signed agreements for each particular road.


Lucien Cannon: For each particular
road?


John Dowsley Reid: Each province has
a layout of the various routes projected, and then as each route is ready it is submitted to our staff for report and approval and, if approved, an agreement is made and signed in which an estimate is given of the total cost of the particular road, of which cost we agree to pay forty per cent.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that, but my information is that the Provincial Government of Quebec refused at first to accept the condition made by the Federal Government. I do not know whether later on an agreement was signed, but if so, I would like to know when, the nature of it, and what new conditions were arranged.


John Dowsley Reid: We have signed several agreements with the province of Quebec, and so far as I understand there is not any trouble between the two governments at the present time.


Lucien Cannon: When were those agreements signed?


John Dowsley Reid: Agreements were
signed from time to time during last year.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Has the minister a list of the proposed road construction in the province of Quebec submitted by the Provincial Government to the Federal Government?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Georges Parent: All those are suggestions?


John Dowsley Reid: These have been approved and agreements have been signed.
At Six o'clock the committee rose and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132 (from the Senate), respecting the Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Bill No. 133 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Conner.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louise Sullivan.-Mr. McMaster.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fontaine, the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 8, respecting The James MacLaren Company, Limited, were read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 126. A motion had been made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that the resolution be considered item by item, and we had reached the fifth item, which reads as follows:
Commissioner of Highways: To provide for the organization and payment of staff of Commissioner of Highways, including A. W. Campbell, C.E., as Commissioner of Highways at $5,000 per annum, $53,000.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has said that several agreements have been entered into between the Federal Government and the Government of the province of Quebec with respect to the construction of highways, the cost of which would be above the $20,000,000 voted by Parliament two years ago for the whole of Canada. Under what conditions were these agreements entered into? Were the first conditions offered to the Provincial Government accepted, and if not what changes were made?
IMr. J. D. Reid.]


John Dowsley Reid: In all the provinces the procedure is to select the roads they intend to work on; then they take the matter up with our officials and an agreement is entered into in respect to those on which we are willing to pay our forty per cent, the province paying sixty per cent. The amount involved in respect of the roads in the province- of Quebec on which we have definitely agreed to pay our forty per cent does not come to anything like $20,000,000. Some of the provinces have submitted plans which "will take up the whole of their proportion; others have not proceeded to the full extent of the amount to which they are entitled. Quebec and Ontario are among the latter. If I remember rightly, Ontario has submitted plans which on the basis of our forty per cent involve an expenditure of about $2,800,000.


Lucien Cannon: For the coming year?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no. Some of the roads may be completed within a year; in other cases it may be two or three years before the work is completed. Quebec has entered into agreements involving about $1,800,000, but they are busy preparing plans for the taking up of the rest of their allotment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has any proposal been submitted by the province of Quebec with regard to a projected highway between St. Joachim in the province of Quebec and St. Simeon, passing through Baie St. Paul and Murray Bay?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think there Was a discussion between the minister and the Commissioner of Highways with regard to the granting of these subsidies to different municipalities along the road between Quebec and St. Joachim. Has the Government arrived at any decision in that matter?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether that particular point was discussed; the question was taken up as to including certain villages, and so on. Of course, each province has its own regulations with regard to its incorporated villages, towns and cities, but we came to a satisfactory arrangement in that regard. I may say that so far no difficulty has been experienced with any of the provinces in connection with the administration of the Act.


Mr. BEST:: How many miles of highway in Ontario have been approved by the Dominion Government?


John Dowsley Reid: The number of miles
approved in each province is as follows: British Columbia, 10 roads, 140 miles; Saskatchewan, 3 roads, 104 miles; Ontario, 16 roads, 526 miles; Quebec, 10 roads, 154 miles; Prince Edward Island, 63 miles; Nova Scotia, 44 miles. This statement was made in March, and there has been a number of additions since, which I have not here.


John Best: Is it a fact that on the
different provincial highways throughout Ontario, the Dominion Government is paying 40 per cent.


John Dowsley Reid: Only on those regarding which we have signed an agreement with the Ontario Government, not on the whole plan as laid down.


John Best: The minister, told us that
there were no complaints about the way in which this money was spent. I have been in Parliament for twelve years, and I have never heard so much complaint regarding any government in power as I have of this one with regard to the way in which this money has been spent. Three members of this House went down to the commissioner to find out what amount had been paid to the Ontario Government by the Dominion Government. We were told distinctly by the commissioner that nothing as yet had been paid. We were also told that very few miles of road had yet been taken over. Two days later, when a communication was sent to the commissioner's office asking for a report as to how many dollars had been paid out, to whom it had been paid and what number of miles had been taken over, we found that about a quarter of a million dollars had been paid. Something must be radically wrong if the commissioner is not able to tell what amount of money has been spent. This money has been spent very foolishly in Ontario; in some instances two or three roads running parallel have been taken over while other parts of the province have not been getting any benefit from this grant.
There is a government road running right through the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and our roads are worse than they were before they were taken over. Immediately they are taken over, the municipalities decline to do a dollar's worth of work and the roads are left in a bad state. Roads in our province are 66 feet wide, and now the Ontario Government is speaking about making them 86 feet wide, whereas 66 feet is too wide. The people are finding fault and rebelling against this proposition, and it is up to the Government, when they pay money to any Provincial Government, to see that it is properly and not foolishly spent. My contention is that moneys granted for highway purposes as well as for other purposes are spent foolishly. Farmers say that if this sort of thing is continued, they will have to abandon the farms because taxes are getting so high that it will be impossible for them to pay them. It is about time for the Government to instruct its officials, who are paid to look after the spending of this money, to make sure that it is honestly and justly spent. I was in formed that the work on these roads was being done by contract. There is no such thing as contract work on roads in any part of the province; the work is done by day labour, and almost all of the halt, lame and blind in the community are on the road, mostly sitting under shade trees, drawing four or five dollars a day. I am speaking now of what occurred last year. Few people know that the Dominion Government is providing part of this expenditure, and now that people are finding that out, they are finding fault with the Dominion Government for the way in which the money is spent. Under what conditions is this money spent? Who sees if the department here is getting value for every dollar that is spent on the roads in order that the money may not be wasted?


John Dowsley Reid: What road does the
hon. member refer to?


John Best: I refer to a road in Wentworth 'county that I travel over, that will cost probably $1,500,000, and I do not think there is any need in the world for such an expenditure. A high bridge is being built in connection with it, and farmers and other people are rebelling against this expenditure. I do not know whether the road from the city of Toronto to Brantford, or any part of it has been taken over, but I know that the money along there has been squandered.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the expenditure in Dundas county, and in fact, in all of the counties where men are at work on roads, there is no doubt that the roads cannot be kept in good shape while the work is being carried on. The men have to excavate and dig out the roads and then put in rock and a top on that. It takes two or three years before you can get a road in good shape, so that once a road is taken over and work is commenced on it, the people travelling along that road

are bound to suffer great inconvenience until the road is completed. In fact, until then, they have to take another road if they want to have a road on which they can travel satisfactorily. As regards the road in the district in which the hon. member lives, I do not know whether that has been approved or whether an agreement has been entered into. I could not tell unless I knew the road referred to.
When this work was commenced, we had to create a special organization, first, of engineers to inspect the work as it goes along. The Provincial Government have their staff of engineers who are in charge of this work. The arrangement is that the Ontario Government, or any other provincial government, call for tenders where it is possible to let the work by tender; the work is carried on under the supervision of their engineers, and I presume that the provincial governments endeavour to get value for their 60 per cent of the expenditure. The duty of our engineers is to see that specifications are prepared and the work carried on in accordance with the agreement made for the particular road; to see that we get value; and that the expenditures are fair and reasonable. We also have our audit staff which goes and investigates the books of the Ontario Government from time to time and keeps a close watch on all expenditures. I do not know that there is much more that we could do to protect expenditures.


Mr. EULER:: As regards roads being built in Ontario-I am referring more particularly to roads in western Ontario, such as the highway from Hamilton to Dundas and up to Galt and Kitchener-I should like to know whether the kind of road that is being built meets with the approval of the department. I presume they have something to say with regard to that; that they would not sign an agreement unless they were satisfied that the road was of the right type.


John Dowsley Reid: Our engineers and staff must approve all the roads before we sign the agreements. We have not made any agreement with the Ontario Government regarding the road from Dundas to Kitchener; so of course we are not responsible for anything in connection with the construction of that road.


William Daum Euler: Is there an agreement as to the part from Hamilton to Dundas?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is the road further to the north to be of the same kind?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say until the agreement is submitted.


William Daum Euler: I am not an expert on roads, but I understand that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with regard to that particular section of the road. Of course, it may not have been well founded.


Mr. STEWART (Hamilton):: There
is a certain road, which I have been told is the county road, running north from the city of London. Is that portion of the road running north from the boundary line of the city a Government road?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand it is a road that the Dominion Government have approved, and have undertaken to pay a certain portion of the cost.


John Alexander Stewart: I have been over that road, and positively it is the worst piece of road I have seen for years. Let me give you an idea of the condition it is in. The automobiles make ruts in the road the size of the tire, and last summer I counted seven ruts in the road nearly a mile long, running from the city of London north. They told me that the road had been built only two months before. All the money spent on it has been lost-every cent. If that is one of these Government roads, I think a special committee should be appointed to go out and examine it and find out whether or not our money has been thrown away. I believe it has.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that some
roads which people think are completed are not at all completed. After a certain amount of work has been done on the roads, they must remain in that condition until the foundation settles and becomes hard enough to have the top dressing put on. I know some roads in Eastern Ontario that are in just about the same condition as the one my hon. friend has mentioned. Only the foundation is there, but after that has settled and become hard, .perhaps in the fall or next year they will put the top dressing on, and it will then be a permanent road. That is the intention, and it is what the agreement provides for. All our officials have been warned that the roads will not be accepted unless they comply with the terms of the agreement, and the money is not paid until the roads are approved and taken over.


John Alexander Stewart: The
minister's answer only makes matters worse. The foundation is what we want

substantial. Everybody who knows anything about a road knows that the top is only a light cover, and is quite different from the foundation. I would like to know whether that road is finished or not.


John Dowsley Reid: The road is not finished, so far as any agreement we have entered into is concerned.


John Alexander Stewart: Is the
foundation finished?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not been over that road lately, but I will get detailed information and send it to my hon. friend about Monday or Tuesday.


John Alexander Stewart: If the
minister will give the information to the House that will be quite satisfactory to me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there is any difficulty in building roads in Ontario, the province of Quebec will be only too glad to lend its good offices and send its engineers to help in this work. In our province we have the best roads in Canada to-day, and we have any number of tourists travelling over the province in the summer, althoup-h. of course, there are many other reasons besides the good roads why tourists come to our province.


John Best: Has not the province of
Quebec already lent its engineers to the Dominion Government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. Last fall a road near Ottawa was required to be completed in short time, and the Government of the province of Quebec did not wait for the application of the Ontario Government but sent along its engineers and the necessary machinery. There was a real love feast between the two provinces, and it was a striking evidence of the good spirit which exists between them to-day.
Speaking of highways, I would like the Minister of Railways to take notice of the decision which has been arrived at lately by the Government of the province of Quebec to rebuild a road, which is practically a federal road, in the peninsula of Gaspe. It is known as the Maritime road. It was originally built by the Federal Government at the time of Confederation, for the maintenance of light houses and the telegraph line. The telegraph line in those days was the property of the Dominion Government. Now it is the property of the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company, but the lighthouses are still dotting the coast from Cape Chat as far as Gaspe
basin. At my request, the Government of Quebec decided this year to undertake the renewal of that old road, which was badly in need of repair. The Hon. Mr. Perrault, of the Quebec Government, has told me that he is awaiting the decision of the Dominion Government as to contributing its share towards the reconstruction of that road. I will send the papers to my hon. friend, and I hope he will consider the application favourably.


John Dowsley Reid: No agreement has
yet been entered into by the Dominion Government as to that road, but when the application is submitted by the Quebec Governhient, we will try and do what we can.


John Best: When the Provincial Government asks the Dominion Government to say whether it approves of a certain road, does the Dominion Government send an inspector to inspect the road after it is completed, or does it send an overseer who watches the progress of the road from day to day?


John Dowsley Reid: The roads are under the charge and supervision of the Provincial Government. They have a permanent engineer on the road. We also have engineers travelling over these roads as they * are being constructed. We do not have a man on one particular road all the time, but he travels about to see whether the work generally is being carried on in accordance with the agreement.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Does the minister expect this co-operation between the Dominion Government and the provinces to go on from year to year? Is it to be a perpetual co-operation? Is that to be the permanent policy of the Government, or is it only temporary?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member understands that we are working under a Bill that was passed by Parliament regarding the construction of highways, and our assistance will continue until the $20,000,000 has been exhausted. Then it will end.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Before recess the minister was reading, from a map approved by the province of Quebec, and submitted to his department, a list of the highways in Quebec. When the committee rose he had not concluded. I understand that another highway has been approved of by Quebec-probably it is mentioned in the plan-from Hull to Montreal. Many years ago the Government of Quebec contem-

plated work on this road, and I am sure that an agreement in respect of it has been submitted to the department. Already work has been commenced on that highway, many miles having been completed. I am informed that last year the work was carried on with the understanding that the Federal Government would contribute its share of 40 per cent. Operations have now been suspended, to the great disadvantage of the municipalities concerned. My impression is that this highway has been approved by the Dominion Government also. Is that correct, and is it the intention to proceed as quickly as possible with the work during the coming summer? Many municipalities, especially m the county of Labelle, have passed by-laws in regard to the road, in the belief that the federal grant would be given. They will be greatly disappointed if they do not receive an assurance this year that the federal grant will be given them.


John Dowsley Reid: An agreement has been entered into in regard to a portion of the road between Hull and Montreal for about six miles. This road is on the general plan of the province of Quebec, but the Provincial Government has not yet made application to the Dominion Government for . an agreement under the Act in regard to the whole road. Until they do make application and an agreement has been entered into, no action can or will be taken by this Government.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: Has any action been taken by the Provincial Government.


John Dowsley Reid: They must first take action. They must decide what roads they want to come under the Act, and then make application to the Dominion Government. We will then send our engineers to report whether we would be justified in entering into the agreement with the province in regard to those roads. But until the province itself moves in the matter we will do nothing.


Mr. FOURNIER:: How much has been expended in the province of Quebec under this Act, to date?


John Dowsley Reid: I gave a statement
this afternoon on that question, but I will repeat it. On April 12, I gave an answer in the House to a question, and stated that $56,374.19 had been paid to the province of Quebec to date. The accounts are now being adjusted with a view to further payments, but the last time I looked into the matter, a week or so ago, the amount was $109,000.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I have some criticism to offer on this question. I have no fault to find with the Commissioner of Highways, whom we properly call "Good Roads" Campbell. But in the Act there is a provision that everything must be done by contract. Now I may say offhand, and I think I am right, that in the province of Quebec we have built roads without calling for tenders, and have got satisfaction. We have been able to build them cheaper and with better results. If the work is given to contractors they will absorb about 35 per cent, and we will get, in the province of Quebec, only 5 per cent benefit out of the grant. Quebec has been paid, so far, according to the minister's statement, only ' $56,000, and if that province has not taken advantage of the scheme to any greater extent, it is because we can build roads cheaper and to better advantage, and do not think we should have the Government pay 40 per cent, the great bulk of which would only go to contractors, the province benefiting to.the extent of only 5 per cent.
I put this to the minister as a fair matter for discussion.


John Dowsley Reid: When the Act was
passed the House agreed, and a clause was inserted so providing, that wherever possible, in the public interest, tenders should be called for; and where this has been done it has been as a result of agreement between the Provincial Governments and the Dominion Government. Of course, there are some cases in which you could not call for tenders because the work could not be done by contract. In such cases an agreement is entered into to have the work done by day work. As I said a while ago, the province of Quebec has entered into an agreement under which, so far, we shall have to pay them at least $1,500,000; and judging by the agreements that are now being submitted, there is no doubt that at the end of five years they will have taken the total amount allotted.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: What
roads are about to be built in Quebec this year?


John Dowsley Reid: The roads are: Mont-real-Sherbrooke highway; Orford, Magog, Bolton, Shefford, St. Cesaire, St. Marie de Monmoir. Montreal-Quebec highway, 48.13 miles. Levis-St. Lambert highway: St. David, St. Telesphore, St. Romuald, St. Nicholas, Desehaillons, Contrecoeur, Bou-cherville, Longueuil, Beauce Jet. Sherbrooke highway; Levis-Riviere du Loup-

Rimouski highway. Montreal-Rouse's Point highway. Levis-Sherbrooke highway.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: How much money has been paid up to date on the Toronto-King-ston highway, and what progress has been made?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the details of each road; I have only the total amount for each province. If the hon. member wants to have the details in regard to each road I shall have to get them.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think what I have asked for is a very important detail in connection with this highway from Toronto to Kingston.


John Dowsley Reid: No doubt about it.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think we should
have some information in regard to the matter; they have been spending money on this highway for the last eight months, perhaps more. If the minister cannot give us the actual amount of money, can he state what it is estimated this road will cost per mile?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not any information of that kind before me now. If hon.. members would mention what information they require I will get it for them. I have not this particular agreement here. There are a great many agreements and in each of them it is stated what the road provided for is estimated to cost, but if the cost be more than the estimated amount we only pay our forty per cent. There is a clause in the agreement with each province which provides that notwithstanding the fact that the road may cost more than the total amount the province is to receive as its quota, the grant shall not exceed what the province is entitled to receive under the Act.


John Albert Sexsmith: That is a very indefinite statement. We are going to expend $20,000,000 toward the construction of highways in the provinces, of which amount it is proposed to expend $7,000,000 in the province of Ontario. I think at least we should have some idea whether that money is going to be spent on one particular road, or in one particular part of the province. The minister has his engineer sitting in front of him, and if we have entered into any agreement with the province of Ontario in connection with this particular road I think we should be told something about it. The Toronto and Kingston road, as we all know, runs along
the lake front, and through the same district there are three railways running- one double track railway, and two government owned railways, and in addition a hydro-electric railway is proposed. Now, I understand, the proposition is to expend perhaps a million or two million dollars on this highway while not a dollar has been spent in the district forty or fifty miles north of it. I would not want to say that the minister or the department was deliberately setting out on a policy of building speedways such as we heard so much a year or two ago in the last provincial election. During that election in the province of Ontario great opposition was made to this road plan by the party ' now in power in the province on the ground that it contemplated building speedways for the inhabitants of the cities to run automobiles and go picnicking over. I do not know as to the truth of the report, but I am now beginning to entertain the suspicion that that is exactly what the department here, in conjunction with the Provincial Government, is deliberately setting out to do. I am not saying that the proposition is absolutely wrong, but I do maintain that it is not to the best interests of the country. Of course hon. gentlemen around me may be quite satisfied that this cement highway should go along the lake shore where there are already two government railways and a privately owned double track railway. Later Sir Adam Beck will come along with his Hydro Electric railway, because I understand that is on the programme, and place it side by side with the others. At the same time there are other parts of the province of Ontario which need consideration just as much as the district through which this Toronto and Kingston highway will run. If we are going to open up highways throughout the province of Ontario, or throughout Canada, for the benefit of the people, supply we are not going to spend all the money on one highway or one chain of highways. I would again ask the minister if he cannot give us some information as to the arrangement which has been entered into with respect to this road? I would ask what the road is going to cost and of what material it will be built?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is
absolutely right in his statement, and he is entitled to get all the information he wishes with respect to any road. As I stated a few minutes ago, I have not the

information here as to any particular highway. My officials should have it here at my disposal, but I have not got it. Now, what I propose doing is this: At the next sitting I will have before me a statement showing each and every contract, or agreement, that we have entered into with every province. That is what I should have had here tonight, but unfortunately, my officials came unprovided with it. In the meantime I am going to ask that this item stand, and when we take it up again I shall have full details with respect to every one of these agreements. Then I hope to be able to afford such information as the hon. member asks for. For that reason I would ask that this vote stand and that we proceed with the next item.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am glad the minister has agreed to let the item stand. If we are going to vote money for highways we should have full information with respect to the proposed expenditure and some concerted plan should be agreed upon.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, a Conservative plan.
Mr. .SEXSMITH:	A well thought out
and comprehensive policy should be adopted, instead of having two or three men going out and building speedways from Windsor to Halifax. Of course, if that is what the Dominion and provincial governments contemplate, as being in the best interests of Canada, I am not going to do any more than enter my protest; ibut if we are going to enter upon the expenditure of millions of dollars on highways we should be informed where the money will be spent, how it will be spent, and how much the expenditure per mile on each of these roads will be.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the year 1912 or
1913, under the previous administration, the attempt was made to pass a certain highway law, but it was blocked in the Senate, the view of the Opposition at that time being that it was a purely patronage measure, and that the Government would try to use it in order to influence the electorate at the ensuing elections. The present law, which was passed in 1918, is not framed quite along the same lines, but it provides for the granting of subsidies in aid of such highways as the provinces wish to improve. I respectfully submit that if the Government is of opinion the roads in the different provinces need improving, the grants in aid of those roads should not he given in this round-about way, but in the form of an increase of subsidy to the
[Mr. J. D. Reid.J
provinces. I submit that by the present policy the Government is simply trying to maintain a hold on the provinces which receive grants and that sooner or later- we may see it sooner rather than later-it will endeavour to influence or direct these governments. I ask what better authority could undertake the improvement of provincial highways than the provincial department organized for that purpose? That is especially true of the province of Quebec where the administration of the Roads DeDepartment has been characterized by such signal success. I submit that we are departing from the spirit of the constitution when we allow the money of the country to be voted in this way. If the Government wants to increase the grant it should do it in the regular way, that is by increasing the subsidies to the provinces. There is no doubt that the feeling for complete provincial control which was predominant before Confederation and which our forefathers so strongly shared is again becoming prevalent. The premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, recently in an address at Montreal protested against the action of the present Federal Government in encroaching upon provincial privileges by dealing with highways, technical education, health and other matters, and I for one would reluctantly see money granted in this way unless it is granted* freely and with due regard for the constitutional rights of the provinces.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend the minister knows his own business best, but I think he would be well advised to let this item stand over. He has still some information to supply to his own followers. I at any rate would like to clear myself of any suspicion of wanting to hold up the item, least of all should I care to be under the suspicion of holding up the salary of the excellent public servant who is mentioned in connection with the Highway Act. However, I should just like to remind the minister that my hon. friend from Dufferin as well as myself and many others opposed this policy at its inception, and I am not surprised at the story my hon. friend from Dufferin has to tell to-night. He pointed out that the duplicating of the work of the province by the Dominion was sure to lead to trouble; but when wilful ministers will not listen to plain, honest farmers, like my hon. friend from Dufferin and myself, on roadmaking, they are sure to get into trouble. It is all very well when they want information regarding high Imperial schemes to

go to hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Maisonneuve or the right hon. gentleman from King's, but when information is wanted on matters relating to daylight saving or roads or anything else touching the life of the farming community, the minister would do much better to consult plain men like the hon. member for Dufferin and myself. I am glad to know that his experience now bears out his foresight and that he was right when he joined the men who afterwards became members of the Progressive group in resisting this retrograde measure. I have hopes if my hon. friend from Dufferin will only broaden out on the tariff, that he will eventually find himself over here altogether, and I can see in him an excellent recruit for the Progressive party. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but can the minister inform us if there are many returned
9 p.m. soldiers employed under this expenditure? I think that was expected at the time the legislation was enacted.


John Dowsley Reid: In localities that I am familiar with, I know the undertaking did furnish work to a large number of returned men.


Michael Clark: I am glad to know that, for it is something good. But as he states that only $20,000,000 has been voted I hope he will be careful on this policy in the future. A speedway has been referred to. There was one speedway my hon. friend from North Cape Bretoft and Victoria did not tell us about, a certain steep place down to the sea, which was taken by some unfortunate quadrupeds. Well, if the minister and his Government go in for many expenditures of this kind they will find they are constructing a speedway down to the sea.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They are on their way.


Mr. FONTAINE:: I understand that the ratepayers of Hull and Wakefield have passed a bylaw for a road about fourteen miles in length to be built connecting the two municipalities. Is the Government ready to supply the money for that highway?


John Dowsley Reid: So far there has been no request from the province of Quebec to spend any of this Dominion money on that particular road.


John Best: I do not wish to hold up these Estimates, but I think it might be as well to have an understanding now
rather than delay later on. I appreciate what the hon. member for Red Deer has stated, but after the example set us in the province of Ontario in extravagant expenditure it would take a very great inducement to get me to go over to the Progressive party; in fact, I would be ashamed to have anything to do with it.


Michael Clark: Not the provincial but the federal men.


John Best: Nor the federal branch.
But, Mr. Chairman, this Government is just as much responsible for the money spent on the highways in Ontario as is the Provincial Government. As the hon. member for Peterborough said, we have heard a lot about one driveway along the central part of Ontario. Personally I would appreciate very much if we had one good driveway, and I am in favour of good roads all over the country, provided we get real value for our money. But should the people of Ontario or any other province take his money from the Federal Government and have it all spent in the one place in the province? The Federal Government has the right to see that the money is spent in various parts of the provinces. We have been told that over 500 miles of road have been approved by the Government. That would cover a highway leading east and west or north and south through the province. But where has the money been spent? Over a quarter of a million dollars has been expended along the lake front, where they have far better road accommodation than up through the central part of the province. All I ask the minister to do is to see that the different parts of the province get fair play, and that somebody see that this money is not squandered, for I do say and believe-and I am not the only one-that the people through Ontario are beginning to realize that the biggest part of this money is being spent for political purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. BEST":	Not that this Government
is making anything out of that expenditure. As the hon. member for Red Deer said, I opposed the legislation at the outset. I believe there is too much duplication by the Dominion Government and the Provincial Governments spending money on the same set of works. I believe it should be definitely laid down what the municipality, and the province, and the Dominion are respectively to do, and then let them strictly mind their own business.

-1 know that this expenditure is doing the Dominion Government a lot of harm because we are blamed for squandering the people's money and not looking after its expenditure. Certainly the officials of the Ontario Government are not attending to their business. I make the statement knowing what I am talking about, and I say to hon. members on this side of the chamber that the farmers in our part of the country are crying out against the great extravagance on roads.


Charles Murphy: As a neighbour of my
hon. friend from Hull across the river, I should like to supplement what he has said regarding the road from Hull to Wakefield. In "reply to the hon. gentleman the Minister of Railways said that no request had yet been received from the Government of Quebec for the construction of this road. According to the newspapers, the municipalities concerned have concluded preliminary agreements and have reached a complete understanding regarding the road to be constructed and the abolition of tolls on the remaining toll roads. Is the request from the Quebec Government the only further step necessary in order to have this work carried out?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it must come from the Quebec Government. We take no action until we get an application from the Provincial Minister of Public Works.


Charles Murphy: Upon receipt of that
request, the work will proceed?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter is looked
into and considered, as if we see no objection we approve the plans and the work proceeds, the Dominion assuming forty per cent of the cost.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is gratifying to observe
that my hon. friends opposite have at last come to realize that the expenditures of the Government are made in a very slipshod and haphazard way. They are beginning to appreciate the facts as we on this side have been stating them for some time, and if they take that attitude in connection with a small item such as that which we are now considering, a matter of $53,000, it is evident that they will take a similar stand when we come to consider items involving large amounts. The member for Dufferin finds much fault with regard to the building of some roads in his constituency; he says the farmers there are on the point of selling their land and moving away. Well, if my hon. friend wants to be honest with himself and honest with
	, |
his electors he will go back to them immediately after the close of this session and tell them to keep their powder dry until the Government has the courage to go to the country, and advise them, as in effect he advises us, to vote against an Administration which squanders the public money. Now, with regard to this particular item, as I understand it the aid for the building of roads is distributed honestly and equitably among the provinces, each province getting its fair apportionment according to population. As I understand the procedure, it is this:	specifications are submitted to
the Commissioner of Highways with respect to highways with which the province desires to proceed within a certain length of time; these are considered by the commissioner and his engineers; the kind of road to be constructed is determined upon. Then the- provincial government call for tenders, and if these are found to be satisfactory the contract is awarded and the work proceeds, supervision being exercised by Dominion Government engineers in cooperation with provincial engineers, and the cost is borne by the Dominion Government and the provincial government in certain proportions. It seems to me that this item should not stand. The details of the number of roads to be built, the mileage and so on does not matter, because these are the subject of consideration and co-operation between the pominion and provincial governments. In view of these considerations, I think this item might very well pass.


Mr. STEELE:: I should not like the
committee to cease discussion of this item after the speech of the hon. member for Westmoreland in which he suggests that members on this side have admitted that the expenditures of this Government are being made in a slipshod way. The only thing wrong with the expenditures made by this Government on roads in Ontario is that they are being made through a very inefficient medium. The money is handed over to the Ontario Government for expenditure. The plans concerning the roads may be all right; the specifications may be very accurate, but unless the money appropriated for these roads is spent wisely, carefully and economically, the whole thing falls to the ground. That is what the people of Ontario are suspicious of to-day; that is what they have doubts about. They are not satisfied that the money spent on roads in Ontario by the Provincial Government and its officials is

being spent wisely, economically and carefully and in the best interests of the people.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend not think that that sort of thing will arise inevitably from the dual authority? It is the mixing of Dominion and provincial authority which leads to trouble.


Michael Steele: I was just going to say that those of us who some years ago approved the original plan of the Government that the expenditure should be made directly by the Federal authority now see that we were not very far astray, and when the Government acceded to the suggestion that that plan be changed and that the money be handed over to the Provincial Governments for expenditure, it is possible that a very great mistake was made. I would just point out to the member for Westmoreland that his friends on that side almost unanimously, I think, supported that method of making the expenditure.
long before the debentures are paid off the roads have to be rebuilt, and I fear that too much the same system is being followed under this present highway scheme. I have no lack of confidence in the Dominion officials, but I do think they should be very alert and exercise every precaution to see that nothing is put over them by the officials of the Provincial Government; for I can say that there is a very strong suspicion in the minds of a large section of the community, including many who are practical road builders, that the country is not going to receive for this expenditure the value which it should receive.


John Archibald Campbell: Whose fault is it that the value is not received?


Michael Steele: The fault of the men who are directly responsible for the supervision of the road. They are the officials of the Ontario Government.


John Archibald Campbell: Does this money have to be handed over by the Dominion Government whether the roads are properly constructed or not?


John Dowsley Reid: The work must be
done in accordance with the agreement entered into; the road must be completed and in first-class shape.


Michael Steele: When we realize that
every dollar of the money is expended by, and every day's work done under the supervision of, the Provincial Government's offi-'cers, we see how difficult it is for the Federal Government or the Federal officers to know that every dollar is being wisely spent. I do not agree with what some of my friends over here have said with regard to expenditures on good roads and the inadvisability of building so many roads, in favour of good roads throughout ario; I do not think we can have too y of them. But I think the minister Id impress upon his officials the neces-'or seeing that every dollar which is -on roads in Ontario, by the present vernment at least, be spent on what will uarn out to be permanent roads. It would be a crime against the people of this country, particularly against the people of Ontario, if millions and tens of millions of dollars are spent during the next few years on roads that will have to be rebuilt
in the course of another ten or twelve years. That is what the result has been in connection with the money spent under the county system during the last fifteen years;


John Archibald Campbell: Who is directly responsible for handing over the money from the Dominion Government?


John Dowsley Reid: An agreement is
entered into and a road constructed under the direction of the officials of the local government. We have our engineer who inspects the work as it is in progress, and he must or should see that the road is constructed in accordance with the specifications. When that is done, the accounts of the Ontario Government are audited by our special auditors for this work. When the Ontario Government prove and we are satisfied that they have spent a certain amount, after we have examined the work and audited the books, we hand over to the Ontario Government 40 per cent of the expenditure in accordance with the agreement.


John Archibald Campbell: Do I understand that money is paid over by the Dominion Government only on the result of a report from the inspector?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, our inspector.


John Archibald Campbell: From the federal inspector. Then if money is paid over by the Dominion Government for work that is unsatisfactory the responsibility lies with the Dominion Government.


John Dowsley Reid: The engineers of the local governments must approve expenditures on behalf of their governments; but our engineers see that the work is carried on in accordance with the agreement, and

they must be satisfied that the work has been done in accordance with the agreement and that the expenditure is fair and reasonable. The certificate of the local engineer, confirmed by our engineer, is the certificate upon which we pay the money over to the Ontario Government.


John Archibald Campbell: No money is paid
out by the minister's department until a satisfactory report is received from his engineers?


John Dowsley Reid: That is correct. Our auditors audit the accounts and our inspector examines the roads.


John Archibald Campbell: If a road turns out to be unsatisfactory, the fault lies with the minister's department in paying out the money.


John Alexander Stewart: It is very important that the people of Canada should know this. There may be many hon. members who do not know how roads are constructed. I built many roads in my young days, and there is something going on with these government roads that is certainly very hurtful to the Dominion. I am told that Mr. Biggs and the Ontario Government are building roads in the vicinity of Hamilton out of limestone. A limestone foundation is not so objectionable, but to put on a surface of limestone is merely throwing away money and is of no use whatever. A limestone surface will last, perhaps, a couple of years, whereas if granite or field stone or some other hard metal is put on the surface, twenty years' use might be got out of a road. If they are putting on a limestone covering, it is time that the Dominion Government should put a stop to that, because it is just throwing .away money. I should like to know what the roads are being covered with.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that they are covering them with some bituminous covering. No road that has been proceeded with up to the present time has yet been completed. I understand a covering is to be put on them next year. They are trying to get a good solid foundation; then they will put gravel over that, and in ' another year they will put on a covering that should be permanent. Our engineers are endeavouring to watch the construction as best they can. I understand, of course, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction as regards the location of the roads. Every person would like to have a good road as near as possible, and we cannot blame him for that. We have had to allow the local

government to do a great deal of locating of the roads. While, perhaps, some fault may be found with my department for not having the roads located differently, if my information is correct, the Ontario Government are also having trouble as regards location, because they have laid out a programme three times as great as the amount of money available from this source, and I do not see how they can ever proceed with their programme. If they do not, they, as well as we, are likely to have some trouble regarding location of roads.


John Alexander Stewart: The answer which I get from the minister is not at all satisfactory to me, because I know for a fact that the roads are being finished with limestone. I want to know what the minister says they are finished with. The two men with the minister know quite well what the roads are covered with. Why not tell us?


John Dowsley Reid: I will say again to the hon. member that he i/>
entitled to the information with regard to that part 'ar road. My officials should have had right here before me to-night a copy of every one of the. agreements so that I could pick up an agreement and tell what it calls for, the construction of the road, the kind of road, the total amount and so on; but I have not that information here and it is an absolute impossibility for me to give an answer to-night. For that reason, I have proposed to let the item stand. The next time I shall have all the information and I will not ask that the item pass until every member has the information which he desires.


Mr.   GANNON@: The minister says:
"My officials ought to have had the information to-night." The minister lays the blame on his officials. I wish to remind you, Mr. Chairman, and through you _ +he minister, that this discussion did r to-night; it started this afternoon, early in the afternoon when this item called, I asked the minister for mation regarding several roads. I him for information regarding agre, and at no time during the discussion we ha'd this afternoon, did the minis offer to let the item stand, nor did he blame his officials for not having the information for which I was asking? To my surprise to-night, when the storm blows, not from this side, but from that side, the minister immediately veers around, lays the blame on officials who cannot answer, and says: "Let the item stand." The attitude taken by the minister is neither fair to the offi-

cials nor fair to the country. If this minister did not have the information this afternoon, he had plenty of time during the recess to secure it, and he should have brought it down to-night. But seeing that a member of the Opposition had asked for that information, the minister did not think fit to bring the information down. Now that his supporters are asking for exactly the same particulars as I was asking for this afternoon, the minister says: "You are perfectly entitled to that information, and as long as you do not get it, the item will not pass." I hope the minister will adopt one standard of fairness and justice to both sides of the House and, in future, when I ask for information, I shall be given the same answer as if that information were requested from his side.


John Dowsley Reid: I might say that my
officials during the recess went over to the department and endeavoured to get all the information they could. They could not get all, the inf or- tion that I wanted during iiK?f*time. We tried to get the information, but we could not secure it.


Lucien Cannon: Then why did the minister . not; allow*, the item to stand at the beginning of the sitting?


Mr. LALOR:: When the minister is getting information as to the roads, will he give us some information as to the Hon. Mr. Biggs, Minister of Public Works in the Ontario Government? I cannot vouch for the truth of the statement, but it is said that he has built a road from the highway through his farm right to his own gate. Are we paying for that part of the road?


John Alexander Stewart: Yes, we
are. It is a Government road.
Item stands.
B', for* .
' AH or General's cars: attendance, repairs anc. alterations, $10,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is an annual vote sity fir repairs to these cars, alterations ,	tendance.


Mr. DENIS:: How many cars are there?


John Dowsley Reid: There were three, but one was destroyed by fire last year.


Lucien Cannon: Last year the vote was $17,000. This year it is $10,000. What is the reason for the reduction?


John Dowsley Reid: There are only two cars this year, as compared with three last year. Last year we had also to make some extraordinary repairs.
193	*


Lucien Cannon: Then if we burn another car this year, we could reduce next year's vote by $7,000 more. Let us try and burn one. Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee where those cars were bought, and at what cost?


John Dowsley Reid: Two of them were
purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway about ten years ago. They were the cars used at the time the present King was out here.


Mr. JACOBS:: We will have spent in the last two years $27,000 on these cars. I fancy they are railway cars, not motor cars, although there is nothing here to indicate which is meant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan not exceeding $50,000,000 repayable on demand with interest at the rate ot six per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, to be used (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any sime by or on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian National Railway Company, or any Company comprised in the Canadian Northern Railway System, or any of them, on any of the following accounts:-(a) operating deficits (b) acquisition of property, materials and supplies, (c) interest on notes, securities or obligations, (d) the principal and interest of maturing or matured loans, secured or unsecured, and (e) construction and betterments ; such loan to be secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the undertaking of the Canadian Northern Railway Company or the Canadian National Railway Company on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve. The loan or assistance herein authorized may be made in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly in cash and partly by guarantee, in the discretion of the Governor in Council. Any guarantee from time to time given under the authority herein may be of the principal and interest of the notes, obligations or securities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company or the Canadian National Railway Company, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, $50,000,000.
John Dowsley Reid: The details of this
expenditure are as follows:
Construction-
Western Lines 1	,
Eastern Lines J	
Betterments-
Western Lines	$4,234,403
Eastern Lines	 4,123,334
H. & S. W. Ry	 250,000
Telegraph	 500,454
Co-ordination, C. N. R.,
G. T. R	 270,480
Canadian National Express Company	
Financial-
Operating Account.. ..$ 5,000,000 Fixed Charges	 18,074,847
2,000,000
9,378,671
112,569
23,074,847



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Requirements for fuel,
ties, etc	 8,360,274
Equipment principal ..	5,750,000
Contracts payable.. ..	321,993
Subsidiary Co. interest. 1,706,030
[Stage Direction]
 16,138,297
[Stage Direction]
We have placed an amount of $50,000,000 to meet that expenditure.
Mr. ARGUE:: How much of that construction has been done in the province of Saskatchewan, and where?


John Dowsley Reid: I will give that information in a moment.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I should like some information about betterments on the eastern lines of the Canadian National railways, particularly between Montreal and Quebec, passing through Joliette.


John Dowsley Reid: On the Canadian
Northern, eastern line, Bury deviation, $272,302, and on the Yamachiche river, grade reduction and bridge strengthening, $102,900. Then we have St. Paulin deviation, $249,348; St. Ursule deviation, $236,050; coaling plant, Garneau junction, $30,000; terminal improvements at Joliette, $30,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am particularly interested in the bridge at Joliette and St. Elizabeth.


John Dowsley Reid: The terminal improvements at Joliette amount to $30,000.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am referring to the
bridge on Assomption river on which work is being done at the present time.


John Dowsley Reid: The total expenditure for the Quebec district is $1,426,900.


Jean-Joseph Denis: At the present time
Fletcher and Company are building a bridge at Joliette on the Canadian Northern line and another bridge at St. Elizabeth, nine miles below Joliette, on the same line, and that work has been going on for over a year.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the bridge my hon. friend refers to is on the Transcontinental.


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, on the Canadian Northern, between Montreal and Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not any item for that.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is there not some work going on, on account of the deviation,

between Montreal and Quebec? Anybody could see work was being done there last summer and fall.


John Dowsley Reid: It may be included
in the amount of $272,302, which is for the Bury deviation. There is also the St. Ursule deviation for which there is an amount of $236,050.


Lucien Cannon: That is a divergence.


John Dowsley Reid: And there is another for $249,248. What my hon. friend refers to may be included in one of these large amounts.


Jean-Joseph Denis: There is a bridge being built at Joliette now, and towards the end of March it was partly destroyed. Trains of the Canadian Northern could not move between Montreal and Quebec for two or three days owing to the partial destruction of that bridge. The contractors for the work are W. M. Fletcher and Company, and the minister must know something about it.


John Dowsley Reid: That is charged to
operation, and is not voted by Parliament. It will come under the total results of earnings and expenses of the Canadian National Railways.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This vote of $50,000,000 is for construction and betterments. Where are we to draw the line? Does not the re-building of a bridge come under the item of construction and betterments? If the minister tells me that the bridge which is now being built in Joliette does not come under this item, I will, of course, take his word.


John Dowsley Reid: If the work is merely the renewing of the bridge, and putting it in the same condition as it was before, it would be charged to operation. If it is a larger or more costly bridge, it will come under the heading of betterments. Evidently the bridge to which my hon. friend refers comes under operation. Now, I desire to answer a question in regard to Saskatchewan. We are trying to put rails on where any grade has already been constructed or is under contract. In Saskatchewan work is being done at the following places: Peebles-Lampman; Thunder Hill Branch-Melfort northwest; Mel-fort-Humboldt; Prince Albert northeast-Swift Current.


John Archibald Campbell: What is being done on these roads this year?


John Dowsley Reid: Grading has been done and it is the intention to put rails on as many as we can. On Prince Albert-Swift Current, there is a stretch of 10.07 miles of rails to be laid to a place called Neid-path. Then there is Luck Lake, and Alsask southeast.


John Archibald Campbell: Perhaps the minister could save time if he would give the details of the work that is to be done on these roads?


John Dowsley Reid: On the Thunder Hill branch there are thirty miles yet to be done; Melford to Humboldt, fifty-four miles yet to be done; Swift Current, to finish to mile 109, thirty-five miles to be done; Luck Lake, twenty-eight miles to finish.


Mr. KNOX:: There is some mistake about the line to Humboldt. That is already finished except the ballasting. *
Hon. Mr. REID Yes, fifty-four miles to ballast. I have here another statement, with respect to Saskatchewan which I think is the correct one:
From Peebles to Lampman when present contracts complete grade will be to mile twenty. No track has been laid on this twenty miles.
Thunder Hill Branch-


Mr. DAVIS:: Is it not the intention to lay the rails on that?


John Dowsley Reid: I will give that information when I mention each line:
Thunder Hill Branch. Starting point of branch mileage Thunder Hill Junction. When present contracts complete, grade will be to mile 118. The track as of December 31, 1920 was at mile 100. That will leave 17 miles yet to put rails on and to complete it to Thunder Hill Junction.
Melfort northeast. When present contracts complete grade will be to mile 30. There are no rails laid.
Melfort to Humboldt. Starting point Melfort. When present contracts complete grade will be to mile 54. There is no track on that.
Prince Albert north east. When present tracks complete grade will be to mile 20. No track on that.
Swift Current Extension. When present contracts complete grade will be to mile 120. Track as on December 31, 1920 was at mile 109. When present contracts complete there will be 10 miles and 4-10 of a mile to lay on that.
Luck Lake Line to Dunblane 35 miles. When present contracts complete grade will be to mile 35. The track on this laid to 19.7. There are still 15 miles to grade.
Alsask, south east, starting at Elrose Junction 148 miles when the grade contracts are completed. There are 148 miles of track on that road.
Eston south east, starting at Eston. When the contracts for grade are completed there will be 35 miles graded. No track has been laid on it.
Turtleford to Meeting Lake, starting at Turtleford, 23 miles of grading when the present
contracts are complete. No rail has been laid on that.
Jack Fish Lake starting at North Battleford, 83 miles. When the present contracts for grade complete grade will be to mile 83. There have been 64 miles of rail laid on that road leaving 18.3 to be constructed.
Acadia Valley starting at Eyre. When the present grade contracts are complete 12 miles will be ready for track. No rails have been laid on that.
I may say that we made a contract for some new rails a week ago, and it is our intention to place these new rails on the main lines. The rails we take up will be placed on the branch lines such as I have mentioned, as far as those rails will go, and to the extent we are able to lay during the present year.


John Archibald Campbell: What kind of rails
are these and what price was paid for them?	,


John Dowsley Reid: The new rails that we purchased are 85 pound rails and we paid $55 per gross ton for them-that is the contract we have made for rails. I am sorry that we were not able to make such a price much earlier. Had we done so we would doubtless have been able to lay many more rails than we will probably be able to do on account of the delay.


Mr. TURGEON:: Before this amount
of $50,000,000 is voted I should like, if I may, to make a few remarks on the general railway situation which confronts us today. The statements and reports which we have received in regard to our railways, have certainly aroused a feeling of disquiet in the minds of the people, and from one end of Canada to the other every one is asking himself what is going to be the outcome of the present situation. To many persons that situation seems appalling, and the dictum that the railways are the safeguard of the nation has, in the minds of a great many people, been changed to a fear that they may become the nation's ruin. To-day the people of Canada as a whole are interested in what is to be done, not in order to immediately remedy the situation, for that is scarcely possible, but by judicious measures to put an end to the present waste of money which every one deplores and, I am sure, none more heartily than the Minister of Railways himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: He bears it cheerfully.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I do not claim to be
an authority on railway matters; I am merely accepting the sincere and generous

-with their farm implements, their waggons, their trucks, their flour and so on, all of which have been carried at much cheaper rates than those applicable to transportation to other parts of the country. And what have they had to pay for that service? What has been the cost of the prosperity which has thus been brought about? Until two years ago, a deficit each year in operation of a few hundred thousand dollars.
To show that the Intercolonial has not, after all, been such a burden as people are apt to think, I wish to quote the statement of no less an authority than the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) as contained in the Drayton-Acworth report of 1917

a report which has commanded the respect and attention of the people of Canada. It has commanded also my respect and attention, although there are a few things in it with Which I do not agree, particularly the suggestion as to the advantage of the Grand Trunk railway coming into the hands of Canada. However, I wish to give this quotation; I am gorry the Minister of Finance is not in his seat.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He is worried about his budget.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I suppose his budget is a matter of more importance just now than the few remarks of the back-bencher from Gloucester. Here is what the Drayton-Acworth report has to sqy with regard to total deficits on the Intercolonial during tlm twenty-eight years prior to the year in which this report was made:
Whatever question there may he as to the propriety of endeavouring- to earn interest on capital, it will hardly be questioned that the line ought to be so managed as at least to earn operating expenses, including therein a proper allowance for taxes. And even ignoring the early history of the undertaking, and considering merely the years from 1889-1916, during which the greatest advance has taken place in Canada and the traffic of Canadian railways has shown the greatest increase, the Intercolonial has paid no taxes and still not earned operating expenses. During this period the total operating deficits reported amounted to $11,188,885.50. The total operating surpluses amounted to $1,651,239.73. In addition, however, there was in the years 1912-16 an amount of $3,046,406.86 charged to working expenses and devoted to renewals, which under the accounting methods in force before that date would have been credited to surplus. Adding together these two latter figures, and deducting them from the deficit, we find that in the 28 years from 1889-1916 there was an accumulated deficit on operation of $6 491 -232.91.
A deficit of $6,491,000 on the Intercolonial at the expense, I will admit, of the

whole people of Canada, during 28 years, means a deficit of between three and four hundred thousand dollars a year. If the new Board of Management had been able to operate, at the same rate of deficit, the railroads which are under their control to-day, and which have about eight times the mileage of the railroad operated during those 28 years by the governments of the country, they would have come before the people of Canada in the last few years with a deficit of some two or three million dollars a year. If they had done so, every Canadian would take off his hat to the board and say: "Go ahead; we have a prosperous country." The present situation, therefore, shows that there is something wrong with the administration. Moreover, as I stated last year, before this Board of Management took over the Intercolonial, it had a deficit of a million dollars some years, a million and a-half one year and a surplus another year; whereas, last year under the commission, there was a deficit of $4,500,000 for the Intercolonial alone, not counting the different branches that have been taken over, and this year there is a deficit of $6,500,000. My hon. friend is one who brought in a surplus during his administration and his late respected predecessor also brought in a surplus. I judge of the immense deficit on the Canadian National railways by the accrued deficit on the Intercolonial. If the Board of Management had operated the National railways at the same rate of deficit as that of the Intercolonial during that twenty-eight-year period, we would say: the Board of Management had done well. We would encourage them to continue and to bring prosperity to the country; but the deficits during the last few years have been increasing by leaps and bounds, so that there must be something wrong with the administration. The Minister of Railways must devise some means by which these deficits will be stopped, and if not changed into surpluses, at least brought to a condition which will give renewed hope to the peopele of Canada.
I am presenting these observations to the committee, and especially to the Minister of Railways and Canals, I am not actuated by any desire to make, as he said, a political football of the road. We must, however, consider the policy of the Government in the light of the railways that we have to-day. Until two or three years ago, it was the habit of hon. members on the Government side to deplore the deficits

on the Intercolonial and to oppose the idea of Government ownership, control- and operation of railroads in this country. Some fifteen years ago, when I and others in the Maritime Provinces, asked for subsidies for the national railways of the Maritime Provinces, we were met by a condemnation of Government operated railroads on the part of hon. members opposite. But they have suddenly become strong supporters of Government operation. It was only when circumstances compelled them to reverse their attitude that they favoured Government ownership of railways. I remain consistent and persistent, as I have been during my life. The Minister of Railways and Canals knows my persistence and perseverance, my only virtue, and he knows that they have at times enabled me to reach my objective. I wish I could by persistence, impress my view upon the mind of the minister so that he could, in turn, impress it upon the mind of the Board of Management and induce them to reverse their policy and if necessary, to reverse the policy of the Conservative party as regards railways in times past because I believe- and these few remarks which I am going to make on the railway situation are inspired by honesty of purpose and vision- that if the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the building of this Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec and the Maritime ports of St. John and Halifax had been put into effect with the view which he had in mind, we would not be confronted to-day with one-half the deficit that we have. That road was constructed with a view to a certain trade and more particularly to secure that cheapness of operation which is necessary in order that the products of the West may be brought over Canadian lines to Canadian ports instead of being diverted to American ports. My convinction-and I speak my conviction and nothing else-is that had that policy been carried out, we would not be in the situation in which we are. The West was at that time the great promise of the future of Canada, and we had to nvepare for the shipment of its products. The West was that part of Canada which alone could become the granary of the world, more particularly of the British Empire, 'because the Prairie Provinces alone could produce the grain requirements not only of Canada and the British Empire, but of the world, as was proved during the last few years, more particularly during the war. It is, therefore, important that we should keep within our own channels, not only the export of the grain from the Prairie Provinces through Quebec, St. John and Halifax, but the return trade, both of which have gone during the last few years to American ports on account of lack of proper railway facilities for the traffic. It was to provide those facilities that the railway from Winnipeg to the Maritime Provinces was constructed. That route is 215 miles shorter than any other route. That means rapidity of transit and quicker returns for the farmer. The line has also the advantage of low insurance. This road would have been the best, not only in America, but in the world, if it had been used for the purposes for which it was intended of bringing the products of the West by rail down to the East. A train of from 60 to 75 cars could have been hauled from Winnipeg to Quebec with scarcely a stop. We all know how railroads lose time in the winter, and how they spend almost as much time at stations as in running between them. If these products had been brought from the West over the Government road it would have meant an immense saving of coal. By the time the Canadian Pacific train leaving Winnipeg has arrived at Port Arthur, the Transcontinental has reached Armstrong; by the time the grain has been transferred from the Canadian Pacific to the ship and is on its way across the lakes the Transcontinental has reached Quebec, and its load of grain is going down the St. Lawrence before the lake boat has reached Buffalo. That illustrates how much faster a route the Transcontinental is. It is a well known fact that grain should have been carried over the Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Quebec for six cents a bushel without there being any deficit on the railway. Today, under present conditions, it can be carried for 18 cents a bushel, which is still from 6 to 8 cents a bushel cheaper than the rate to United States ports, but this trade has been lost to the country in the last four or five years. Every time we on this side of the House mention railway deficits, hon. gentlemen opposite condemn us for the construction of the Transcontinental. It is only a few days ago that I heard with regret the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, say that the Transcontinental traversed a wilderness, that we had been promised mountains of information, but that nothing in that direction was to be had. I would ask him if he has travelled through that portion of the country from Winnipeg to

Quebec. If he has, he must have seen living mountains of information in the persons of hundreds of thousands of settlers along that route, cultivating the forests and working in the pulp and paper mills, notwithstanding all the handicaps under which they are placed. I believe that any man who knows anything about railways, notwithstanding any prejudices he may have had at first, if he will only sit down and study the matter for a while, will admit that we have suffered a tremendous loss by not taking advantage of this route from the first. The Prime Minister takes pleasure in calling it the ill-fated Transcontin-mental. That wounds my feelings, but that perhaps is not of much moment to him; more than that, it arouses the ire of great corporations in this country, more particularly in the East. The farmers of the west have lost from 5 to 8 cents a bushel on their wheat on account of the Government's policy in connection with this road. My hon. and beloved friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), has come in since I started to speak, and in justice to him I want to repeat what I have said. No man has a greater respect for him than myself. My hon. friend some time ago referred to the Transcontinental railway built between Quebec and Winnipeg, and in the course of his remarks, in reference to the question of the Government submitting information to the House touching the railways of the country, he said that when that project was under consideration the late leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had promised mourttains of information, and had declared that this railway would be a great benefit to the country. I would ask him now if he has visited that portion of the country from Winnipeg to Quebec since the railway has been in operation? I receive no answer, and I presume my hon. friend has not done so.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I have travelled over a good portion of that road twice.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I dare say, between Cochrane and Winnipeg, but not between Cochrane and Quebec. If the hon. member travelled between Winnipeg and Quebec I can assure him he would see the mountains of information of which he spoke, in the shape of thousands ' of live settlers who have erected lumber mills and pulp mills and engaged in other activities, thus creating a trade the benefit of which is lost to the farmers of the West because of the lack of proper transportation facilities. I

have spoken of the quantity of wheat shipped to the United States, and I think that the more sold in that country the better for us. The United States market we tried to get, and it is no fault of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier that reciprocity was defeated in 1911. If that agreement had been entered into, the people of the West would to-day have been happy. It was my privilege, through the generous invitation of my admirable leader, to address some meetings in Saskatchewan last fall, and I remember there making the statement that had reciprocity been the fortune of Canada in 1911, there would have been no need to-day of a Farmers' party, because the farmers would have been prosperous and quite content. Recently it was my pleasure to read in the newspapers a report of certain utterances of the leader of the Agrarian or Prog'res-sive party, the hon. member for Maquette (Mr. Crerar), in which he stated the same thing. He said that had reciprocity been carried into effect there would have been no need for a Farmers' party in Canada at the present time because the farmers would have prospered. I was very much pleased to note that sentiment on the part of the hon. member.
The minister will, no doubt, recall that when we were considering the taking over of the Grand Trunk two years ago I warned the House that the products of the West, particularly grain, would not find their way to St. John or Halifax but would go to Portland. My hon. friend promised me at the time-I had no reason to doubt his word, and he would probably have carried out his promise had he not been prevented-that he would take steps to see that this would not occur. I warned the minister that if we did not take steps to prevent the diversion of our products from the port of St. John to Portland, he would find himself faced with a situation which it would be exceedingly difficult to overcome. I regret the new minister for New Brunswick, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Wigmore), is not here. Complaint was made in the city of St. John, in the month of February, that no grain was coming through the port of St. John, but was going to Portland. A delegation waited upon the minister, and certain questions were also addressed to the head of the Board of National Railways. Mr. Hanna replied that he had not so far sent any grain to St. John, nor had he sent any to Portland. He added

however, that it was his intention to send some to St. John as soon as possible but that perhaps the Grand Trunk had been taking grain. On inquiry it turned out that the Grand Trunk had been taking grain from Montreal to Portland. Now, if that is to continue, and grain is to go through American routes, then I say to my hon. friend the Minister\of Customs, that the people of St. John might as well have no harbour at all. It is not only money for their harbour that the people there require; they need trade as well, and as we know, only about 24 per cent of the grain trade last year moved through Canadian ports.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Minister of Railways is shaking his head; you had better prove your statement.


Onésiphore Turgeon: He knows I am correct. Only 24 per cent during the past six months has gone through Canadian ports; the rest has gone through American ports.


John Dowsley Reid: The very opposite is the case; the figures should be reversed.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I have not under my hand at this moment the figures to establish my statement, but it is well known that from twenty-four to thirty per cent of the grain trade of the West has gone to Canadian ports, and of that thirty per cent at least eighty-five or ninety per cent is controlled by the Canadian Pasific Railway Company, leaving very little available for the Canadian National Railway. It is in the hope that provision may be made for the future that I am now impressing upon the committee and the Minister of Railways the existing conditions in this country. As I say we have lost the export trade and we have lost the imports which the control of that trade would have meant for the West. The Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific was especially designed to haul heavier trains than the other railways could haul-they are railways designed to carry as much as 10,000 bushels of grain in less time at a lower rate than other railways could do. Special transportation facilities are required for the carriage of wheat owing to the small profit which the farmer is necessarily bound to get; with such a long haul, and that factor in the future is bound to be of much greater importance than it has been in the past. It is quite true that owing to the war the grain products of the West for a few years commanded a high price; but when things return to normal state
the farmers of the West will inevitably suffer unless we can cheapen the cost of transportation for them, and the heavy cost of carrying the wheat will swallow up, * or greatly reduce, the small margin of profit likely to come to them. If the situation is not seriously considered and a remedy provided the farmers of the West are bound to encounter hardships in the future, and it would be indeed an evil day if our western wheat should ever come to lose its commanding place in the markets of the world. The price of wheat is fixed in Liverpool and the cost of the long rail haul in Canada should be reduce^ in every way possible. The profits or losses incurred by our western farmers depend to a great extent upon whether the cost of transporattion has been brought down to the lowest possible point. In the case of a train load of silk, intended for the large centres of the East, which our railroads carry from the Pacific and which is perhaps worth millions of dollars, an enhanced freight rate may not be a very serious thing; but the addition of. a cent or two to the cost of carrying wheat, and other farm products, may mean all the difference between profit and loss.
In the matter of ocean insurance the improvements in the St. Lawrence have made that route absolutely safe and today there is no greater danger of accident on the St. Lawrence than there is on the ocean itself. That is as regards summer navigation. If we take winter navigation the ports of St. John and of Halifax also provide safe routes, and there is no reason why a higher rate of insurance should be charged on vessels sailing from these ports than in the case of ships sailing from Boston or Portland. Our summer and winter ports are therefore in a good position to handle the export trade coming from the West, and excessive ocean insurance rates should not be demanded.
The National Transcontinental railway was built with the idea not only of carrying eastward and westward bound freights, but of providing a fast passenger and mail service. We have lost this trade also. It has gone mostly to the United States ports; the balance has been captured by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. On the Canadian National Railway passengers and mail could have been carried from our ocean ports to Winnipeg twenty-four hours quicker than by any other route. Yet this business has been lost to us. No wonder the Canadian National railway

does not pay. It is certainly, in large measure, owing to these losses that the couutry is to-day faced with the present * railway situation. Not only has there been a failure to use the Transcontinental railway between Winnipeg and Quebec, but the operations of the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg have largely been strangled by allowing Mackenzie and Mann to build parallel lines all the way to the Pacific. This policy resulted in the downfall of Mackenzie and Mann, to say nothing of a provincial administration in British Columbia, but because of it we to-day hear the story of deficits and of insufficient traffic on the Government lines.
This is a very serious problem, and, as I said at the outset, I am not making these remarks for any political effect. What I am saying will not bring me a single extra vote in Gloucester. Last fall the Prime Minister when he came down to Nova Scotia called us Bolshevists and Communists, and as I had been talking very strongly in favour of free trade I considered I was in that category, and was rather surprised. As a matter of fact I am called the "peacemaker" in Gloucester and I have succeeded so well in that role that you could not find to-day ten Conservatives in my county. But I do say from the bottom of my heart, and in the hope that it may have a salutary effect on the Board of Management, that those gentlemen must understand that the people expect an improvement or else that the Board will demobilize themselves, Each year the deficit grows bigger, and I can derive no hope of any improvement in the immediate future from their utterances. For instance, I read in the Ottawa Journal a few days ago that Mr. Hanna had stated before the committee which is inquiring into our national railways and merchant marine that freight rates should not be disturbed. That to my mind is a hopeless outlook. We talk of the success of the Canadian Pacific, but the men in control from Lord Shaughnessy and Mr. Beattie downwards are human beings, and surely other human beings ought to be found capable of administering our national railways with an equal measure of success. We cannot dispose of these railways with any advantage to the country. We have the Grand Trunk Pacific, for instance, which cost the country three times per mile more than the Transcontinental cost. The latter is the cheapest road Canada possesses to-day. It has cost $180,000,000, but it must be remembered that it has cost no more. But let 
us consider what the Canadian Pacific has cost the people of Canada. According to the reports of that company $70,000,000 yet remains to be paid on the lands they have sold, notwithstanding the millions of dollars they have collected every year from land sales, and in addition they value the balance of the land they received from the Canadian people at $91,000,000. There is over $160,000,000 which the Canadian Pacific has cost this country, and if we had placed the same quantity of land to the credit of the Transcontinental the land itself would have paid for its construction, as we have paid practically for the construction of the Canadian Pacific.
If I may be permitted to refer to the offer made by Lord Shaughnessy to the Government in connection with our railway problem, I would say that although I have the greatest respect for him, neither he nor any other man can make an offer today that will relieve the situation. If the Canadian Pacific railway and our national railways were operated as one com-.plete system we could no longer control the rates which the management might find necessary to secure sufficient revenue to pay dividends. But I am heartily in accord with that part of Lord Shaughnessy's memorandum in which he states:
Even at this advanced stage it would be wise for the Dominion Government to drop all measures looking to the acquisition or control of the Grand Grunk, to relieve that Company of all obligations in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific and to grant easy terms covering a period of years for the repayment of any amounts advanced by the Government to the Grand Trunk or secured on the credit of the Government in the last two years.
It is practically the same proposal as I myself made in 1919 when speaking on the Grand Trunk Bill. I agree with Lord Shaughnessy to that extent, but I cannot agree with him when he says that the Transcontinental railway has cost too much money. I would not assume to oppose my judgment to that of Lord Shaughnessy but I would give the opinion of no less an authority than the late Sir Sandford Fleming, one of the greatest engineers that Canada- indeed, the British Empire-ever possessed. Sir Sandford Fleming points out that a railroad should be built with the idea of permanence so that it will not have to be reconstructed every twenty or thirty years. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government saw to it that the Transcontinental was constructed of the very best material; that the very highest degree of perfection was attained in order that

traffic could be moved with the greatest possible speed and at the least possible cost. I quote from the historical sketch of the Intercolonial, 1832 to 1876, written by Sir Sandford Fleming, page 110:
No portion of railway work is more important than its bridges. When a line is carried out by private effort, a circumscribed capital may compel the adoption of cheap structures. In such cases it is not the character of the structure, or its economy, which commends itself; but it is the necessity of the case, which limits its cost.
A railway constructed to meet a national requirement, and situated like the Intercolonial, is controlled by -no such limitation. It requires no argument to establish that in such circumstances all structures should be of the best form suggested by experience, and that the most durable material should be used. They are then permanently built, and require no subsequent renewal. The first expense is the one cost and in the end, the durable structure is by far the least costly.
This is the opinion of that eminent engineer who served Canada so faithfully and well for many years. When later on he was connected with the construction of the Canadian Pacific he was forced by circumstances to accept bridges of a less durable structure than those which he here recommends, but those have since had to be rebuilt. During the last twenty years the Grand Trunk Pacific has practically rebuilt its road, while the Transcontinental is there for years to come, with its small cost of maintenance per mile compared with that of other roads.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will bear with me in my expression of opinion with regard to these matters. Only by discussion and suggestion can we hope to arrive at a solution of our difficulties in connection with the railway situation. Of course, it would require a mind greater than mine, minds even greater than those of many others who have considered the matter, to find the right solution for the problem. But if in the few suggestions which I have made I have been of some assistance to the Minister of Railways, my remarks shall not have been in vain. I feel sure, Mr. Chairman, that hon. gentlemen opposite who have had the patience to listen to me know that what I say is right. It is hard to admit a false policy, but we all at times have had to admit error. Let my hon. friends, therefore, admit that they have been in the wrong, and go ahead and do something. Let us take such steps as will result in affording us the cheapest possible means of transportation consistent with rapidity and efficiency, so that our
people will be able to command a market for all that they produce.
Some attempt has been made, on the ground of lack of cheaper transport facilities, to export grain from Alberta through the Panama canal. One ship, I understand, was loaded last fall and proceeded via the west coast and through the Panama canal to Europe. It was estimated at that time that the farmers who were shipping via that route would save three cents a bushel on the cost of transportation. When the Board of Railway Commissioners last September were in a hurry to raise the freight rates forty per cent, they thought they would help the farmers in connection with the shipment of their grain to the seaports of Canada, but the effect was that the grain went through United States ports. But now the farmers are endeavouring to find a remedy for themselves by shipping through the Panama canal. The Panama canal has certain advantages; it may be of advantage to British Columbia in the export of her lumber, coal and other products, but it cannot possibly rival transportation over Canadian railways through Canadian ports. When the western farmers' grain reaches the Panama canal, it will have to meet competition from Buenos Ayres and Argentine ports. Wheat produced in the Argentine Republic can reach the Panama canal at very little cost, at a cost not to be compared with that of transporting wheat produced in Alberta to the Pacific coast. Therefore, the farmers of Alberta will not be able to compete with the farmers of Argentina. Moreover, shipment via the Panama canal will be a slow process so that the wheat could not reach the market at the desired time, and rapidity of transit is a great consideration in the shipment of wheat. Therefore, the only really possible route for the transportation of the products of the West is from Winnipeg to Quebec in summer and to St. John or Halifax in winter.
If I have not been able to interest the committee as I should have liked, I have taken part in this debate in the exercise of my duty as the representative of the people of my constituency, and in the hope that others will have the same courage and will offer suggestions. Had it not been for the invitation of the minister to any member, who so desired, to make suggestions in honesty of purpose I would not have taken that liberty. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee for extending the privilege that you have given

to me. My observations and suggestions have been given in the spirit of a true Canadian.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon.
member rises to speak, I must remind the committee of the ruling given when this resolution was called this afternoon. The Chairman suggested that all of these items be taken together by unanimous consent in order that all hon. members could discuss fully all matters pertaining to railways. This suggestion was not accepted. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turgeon) was not in the committee at the time, and for that reason he was not interrupted. I must, however, point out to hon. members that all questions relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the National Transcontinental railway and the Canadian Government railways are not in order under this item. The motion was made that the items be considered separately, and it becomes the duty of the Chairman to prevent a repetition of the same arguments and to direct that the discussion should be relevant to the item under consideration.


Mr. HALLADAY:: In the year 1918, the Canadian Northern started to build a railway from the town of Hanna, on their main line running from Saskatoon to Calgary, to the city of Medicine Hat, a distance of about 130 miles. They laid more or less steel north of the Red Deer river and did a certain amount of grading south of the river. How much grading is there to be completed? Will the steel be laid on this grade this fall and, if so, will the connection be made over the Red Deer river? It is very important that this road be completed as soon as possible, because it connects the Canadian Northern system with one of the best manufacturing cities in Western Canada, and it will add greatly to the revenue of this road when completed.


John Dowsley Reid: I find that this road is in the list of work to be done in Alberta. A contract was let in 1920 for the steel 'work on the bridge over the Red Deer river; that bridge is now under construction and, I understand, it will be completed in the near future. The starting point of this branch is from a place called Bonar. When the present contract is completed the grade will be at mile 135, and, as I understand the matter, that is practically at Medicine Hat. My memorandum states that grading has been done within two or three miles of Medicine Hat, so that the

grading is ready for rails practically all the way from Red Deer river to Medicine Hat. The track on December 31, 1920, was at mile 58.3. I take it that that is the line from Bonar to Red Deer river. As I understand the matter, the rails have been laid as far as Red Deer river, and the farmers last year had the advantage of the use of that portion of the railway. There are 76.7 miles of rails to be laid from the Red Deer river to Medicine Hat and that is in the list of works to be done. It is expected that this will be completed during the present season. As regards Alberta, this is the work laid out up to the present time:
Acadia Valley branch. The starting point is at Eyre. When the contracts are completed, the grade will be at mile 25. There are no rails laid on that so far, but 13 miles will be laid this year.
There is another branch of the Acadia valley, commencing at Eyre, and when the present contract is completed, the grade will be at mile 43. No rails have been laid. Eighteen miles of rails will be laid this year.
As regards the line from Hanna to Medicine Hat, as I have stated, it commences at Bonar. The total length is 135 miles. 58.3 miles of steel have been laid, and 76.7 miles of steel will be laid this year.
Oliver northeast branch, commencing at Oliver, 120 miles. When the present grading is done, there will be 120 miles graded, 120 miles of rails are there now ready and the line will soon be completed if it is not in operation at the present time.
Red Deer spur starting from the Bra-zeau Junction branch, 6 miles. The rails are laid on that.
Onoway branch, starting from Peace river junction, 72 miles when the grading is completed; 60 miles of rails are in place, and the rails will be put on the remaining twelve miles this year.
Munson double track, starting from Munson. The total length is 322 miles. 313 miles of rails have been laid, and 9 miles of rails will be laid this year. That makes a total of 128.7 miles of rails to be laid in Alberta this year.


Mr. BUREAU:: I understand that the question I am going to raise was discussed this afternoon. This item is asked for the purpose of a-
Loan not exceeding $50,000,000 repayable on demand with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, to be used (where amounts available frbm set operating

earnings may be insufficient) to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any time by or on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian National Railway Company, or any company comprised in the Canadian Northern Railway System.
In 1919, on June 6, an Act was passed, subject, however, to coming into force by Order in Council, for the purpose of bringing all the Government railways under Dominion Government control under the provisions of that Act, and those provisions were to the effect that these Government railways were to be subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and to the provisions of the general Railway Act. Now either one of two things is true: either the Canadian National Railway Company exists, or it does not exist. If it exists, we have a right to discuss anything that comes within the purview of the Government railways which are to be included in that company. Of course, there is a restriction in the Act; the Governor in Council reserves to himself the power to designate what railways shall form part of the Canadian National Railway Company, but ordinary common-sense, even good horse sense, would make us presume that every railway under government control would form part of the Canadian National Railway Company. Now if this company does not exist, the minister has no right to ask us to vote this money for a company which is nor in existence-for railways which are supposed to exist and be operated under a law which is not in force. This Act I speak of was passed under closure. I remember the circumstances distinctly, because there were certain disagreeable remarks addressed to me at that time. I say that the present situation as to the existence or non-existence of this company works an injustice to the public, and I will give you a concrete case.
In January of 1920 I filed a petition of right for $180,000 odd for a client of mine, the Belgo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Company. I also filed a similar claim, although the amount was not quite so large, for the Laurentide Company, for damage caused by the National Transcontinental operating north in the St. Maurice region. Those petitions off right are still in the hands of the Government, and all we got was an acknowledgment of receipt. In the meantime dams were destroyed by the Transcontinental, resulting in damage to property to the amount of $183,000, and we had to reconstruct them in a hurry to save the lumber coming down the St.
Maurice river. One of the dams caused a jam of logs, and this jam of logs caused an erosion of the shore. Our petition of right filed in January, 1920, has been ignored, and in the meantime the Government has taken action against my clients for erosion, for a similar amount.
I say that is a shame. Either this company exists or it does not exist. If it exists, I have the right to go before the ordinary tribunal. If it does not exist, I do not have that right, and I have to ask for a petition of right. Personally, I do not feel like voting money when the minister comes before Parliament and asks for a vote for the National Railway Company which is not in existence. We ought to know the exact status of that Canadian National Railway Company-what it hides, or what it covers. If we are going to vote money for the Canadian National Railway Company, why not pass the Order in Council and bring the Act into force? Why abuse the power vested in the Government? As the result of this negligence on the part of the Government, we have cases such as I have just cited. For my part, I do not feel ready to vote for this item under the circumstances.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is for the Canadian Northern Railway system.


Jacques Bureau: Then strike out the
Canadian National Railway Company.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill that the hon. member refers to was passed for the purpose of bringing all the Government railways under one corporation. At that time negotiations were going on with the Grand Trunk, which it was expected on completion would lead to its transfer to the Canadian National Railway system. The Intercolonial and the Transcontinental would also come into the one system. The Act was to be brought into force by Order in Council. That was the intention when we got the Grand Trunk.


Jacques Bureau: There was no question
of the Grand Trunk at that time?


John Dowsley Reid: That was the intention when the Act was passed, but the negotiations fell through.


Jacques Bureau: It must have been a
pretty silent intention.


John Dowsley Reid: Since then the management of the Canadian Northern have been appointed, and later, by Order in Council, a Board of Management was appointed to manage the Canadian National and the Canadian Northern.	*


Jacques Bureau: That was before the
Act.


John Dowsley Reid: No, since the Act.


Jacques Bureau: I am talking of the
Order in Council.


John Dowsley Reid: Prior to that, Mr. Hayes was general manager of the Intercolonial.


Jacques Bureau: But as to the Order in Council, was it prior or subsequent to the Act?


John Dowsley Reid: It was since the Act
was passed. I am quite satisfied that Mr. Brady resigned from the Transcontinental and Mr. Hayes from the Intercolonial to be appointed managers of the road. The hon. member, if he had a claim against any portion of the railway-


Jacques Bureau: I had three.


John Dowsley Reid: -he would have to get a fiat and sue the Government.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot get a fiat; that is the trouble. I have been trying for a year to get one.


John Dowsley Reid: I have never heard of
the case, and I am surprised that the fiat has not been granted. However, now the hon. member has brought the matter up I shall certainly see why it was refused. There is no reason why they should refuse a fiat at any time if they will not settle, and it is a surprise to me to hear there has been a refusal.


Jacques Bureau: I would not surprise you at all. It takes a year or a year and a half to get a fiat.


John Dowsley Reid: I can hardly believe it takes that long. However, I do not think the committee feel they have all the information'they desire on this item, and I am not going to urge that it be passed to-night. In the meantime I shall make inquiries into the matter my hon. friend has brought up.


Jacques Bureau: Leaving aside the question of the claim, why has the Canadian National Railway Company been included here? It does not represent the Canadian Northern Railway system. The Act provides:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - "Canadian Government Railways'' means and includes all such railways or parts thereof, and all such properties, works, powers, rigts and privileges, or interests or any of them as may be designated, whether generally or in detail, in any Order in Council from time to time 
subsisting, entrusting the management and operation thereof to the company under the provisions of section eleven of this Act, and includes, unless expressly excepted, all properties, works.
And so on.
"Canadian Northern" means the Canadian Northern Railway Company; "Canadian Northern System" means the Canadian Northern and the companies designated in the First Schedule to this Act.
We know exactly what "Canadian Northern Railway" means and what "Canadian Northern System" means, because every company included in those terms is designated under a specific name in the schedule attached to the Act. But "Canadian National Railway Company" is absolutely meaningless unless there are words there to cover something we know nothing about.


Mr. MANION:: Before I discuss the
subject which I desire to take up for a few moments I want to state a fact which will, I think, warrant the view that I shall not be out of order in what I have to say. The line to which I shall refer was originally a Grand Trunk Pacific line, the lake Superior Branch, but about the year 1913 it was leased by the Government to be run in conjunction with the Canadian Northern Railway. Having stated this, I think I am perfectly in order in discussing this subject, and I can assure the committee that I shall not occupy very much time. It will be remembered that a few years ago it was the custom of the railways particularly, but also of other companies, to look for bonuses. We know that the railways used to look for bonuses, not only from the Dominion Government, but also from the Provincial 'Governments, and the municipalities. At the time the lake Superior Branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, from the main line to lake Superior, a distance of about 196 miles, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company entered into an agreement with the city of Fort William on March 29, 1905, by which the city gave them, among other things, a cash bonus of $350,000. They also gave them some land grants, some rights of way over streets of the city, certain exemption from taxation, police and fire protection, and street railway and other facilities. The citizens of Fort William estimate those grants, apart from the $350,000 cash, to run into hundreds of thousands. In return for this, the company agreed to establish their terminals at Fort William. Practically in the words of the agreement, they undertook:

To erect and maintain in Port William its principal Lake Superior terminals, works, and head office, and engineering, construction, and operating staffs in connection with and pertinent to the said Lake Superior Branch.
These terminals consisted of such things as round houses, machine shops, repairing shops, work houses, superintendent's headquarters, engineering, construction and operating staffs, and the lake and rail traffic pertinent thereto. That at least was the spirit of the agreement entered into by the city of Port William, which has lived up to the agreement. It has paid over the money, given the exemptions, and fulfilled all the other terms of the agreement. The people of Port William never believed that they got their money's worth from the agreement, but so long as the company lived up to the conditions they agreed to, the city felt that though it had not derived very great advantage from the contract it must nevertheless take its medicine, so to speak. The people thought they would be sports enough to stand by the agreement, whether they were winners or losers.
About 1913 the Government took over the line on a lease to work it in conjunction with the other lines of the Canadian Northern and the Government railways, and from that time on the people of Port William have been gradually losing as a result of the agreement. You will readily understand that a city of 8,000 or 10,000- the population was about that when the bonus was given-having given $350,000 cash, to say nothing of the various other concessions they made, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, have shouldered a a heavy burden in this undertaking, and they are realizing now that it has been a losing proposition. The Board of Trade met some months ago. I was present at the meeting and on my suggestion they appointed a committee to look into this matter. They waited upon the superintendent at that place, but on orders from the authorities higher up, he refused any information as to the conditions that existed at that time in comparison with previous conditions. At various times since, citizens have noticed, without any information from the superintendent, that various trains have been taken off which made their headquarters at Port William, both passenger and freight trains, various officials have been removed and freight, passenger and other traffics which had been transferred at Fort William, were no longer being transferred there. Large staffs of men were taken away and the city has lost what it would have gained had the agreement been lived
up to by the other party. I will not go into the question in great detail.
There is nothing new in this condition, because I remember that nearly three years ago I came to Ottawa with a deputation and waited on the Minister of Railways. At that time we foresaw that we were going to lose certain things on behalf of desire for efficiency, but while we had no objection to anything being done to promote greater efficiency, we wished either to get what was coming to us or something equivalent to what the city had spent, both in this cash bonus and in the various grants it had given. We waited on the minister and later on we interviewed Mr. Hanna in Toronto. I have under my hand a letter written by the Board of Trade to the Minister of Railways on November 2, 1918, two and a half years ago. The minister throughout has been very friendly to the city, and I believe it has been his desire to give the citizens justice. But it has always been pointed out that the railways are operated by Mr. Hanna and a directorate. The city lately concluded that they were not getting justice. There was no sign of their getting what was due them, and so they took legal advice. They consulted some of the best lawyers in the country who upheld their contention that they had undoubted rights in the matter, and that if the terms of the agreement were not complied with on the part of the other party, they had a perfect right to institute a lawsuit. I have spoken to, waited upon, and written to Mr. Hanna on the question and he gives various excuses as to why changes are made, but he always insists that Fort William should and will get a fair deal. He claims that the changes have been made in the interests of efficiency, and I have no argument against any steps in that direction, nor have the people of Fort William. But neither they nor I agree that all these changes have been necessary in order to promote efficiency, and whether they are necessary or not, they should not all be made at Fort William's expense and the city unquestionably has a right to some return for this cash bonus of $350,000 and the various other grants they have made. Certainly the citizens do not intend to sit quietly by and see the profits which should accrue to them taken away. Without going futher into the question, I wish to say that the people of the city of Fort William which I have the honour to represent expect that this agreement will be lived up to by the other party. They realize that when

a private corporation enters into an agreement with a city or another corporation, if the agreement is taken over by a third party, that party is expected to fulfil its terms just as through he had been one of the original parties to the agreement; and in the same way when the Government takes over a railway, as it has done in this instance, it is expected that the agreement will be observed. The Government must live up to the agreement just as the Grand Trunk Pacific would have had to do. There is not only a moral but a legal claim as well, and the citizens of Fort William have legal opinion behind them in this position. As I have stated, I believe that the minister and Mr. Hanna have both tried to be fair. They both claim that they have been endeavouring to do justice by Fort William, and the minister on various occasions has taken the matter up with Mr. Hanna to see that .everything that could be done to ensure a fair deal by Fort William should be done. But the citizens of that city have reached the stage where they demand a show-down and they expect that this agreement will be fully lived up to. I expect the same thing, and I may say that the people of Fort William will certainly fight to see that they get their rights in the matter. If the agreement is not lived up to the Government is sure of a lawsuit; and if the lawsuit does not give the city justice I can assure the Government that during the next session of Parliament I will see what the Parliament of Canada has to say about it. Finally I would like the minister to assure me-he has done so privately and I feel sure he will be quite willing to do so publicly-that he will make strenuous effort to see that Fort William will not suffer injustice under this agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has several times very forcibly brought this matter to my attention, and I think the people of Fort William can rest assured that he is, looking after their case satisfactorily. The trouble is this: It is impossible for me to take the matter up at the present time on account of the railway situation being in an unsettled state. There will be some dissatisfaction as a result of placing the Transcontinental system, and the Canadian Northern and the other railways together on account of the changes that must be made, which changes are in the interest of economy. These cases, when the Government gets control of the

whole system, must be dealt with, and I would say would be dealt with fairly by any government. I am sorry that we have not been able to take this matter up and get a decision earlier than this. I have within the last few weeks taken up the case of Fort William with Mr. Hanna and urged him to do what he could to carry out the agreement so far as it was consistent with the operation of the railway. I am satisfied that the question will have to be taken up by the management within the near future, and if an agreement cannot be come to between the management and the city it will, of course, have to be settled through the courts. The Government, however, has no desire whatever to ' take advantage of any claim the city of Fort William may have. All it would wish to do would be to see that in any settlement made-if it is necessary to make a settlement, on account of placing the two terminals together at either one point or the other-such settlement is fair and reasonable, and I am satisfied Parliament will vote any amount that would be necessary to settle a claim that was properly established.


Robert James Manion: May I say, in justice to the minister that he has done what he stated; he has taken the matter up with Mr. Hanna and has endeavoured to get the matter straightened out to the satisfaction of the people at Fort William. May I also say, in justice to Mr. Hanna, that he always asserts that he intends to do the same and that at the present moment he is dealing with the matter. The reason I brought the question up to-night is because when we are dealing with the Estimates, as we are now doing it is practically the only opportunity when I can reasonably bring it forward. I wish to put myself on record as stating positively here that if the city of Fort William does not get justice in this matter, that when the time comes I will again bring it before hon. gentlemen, if necessary, and ask the House to deal with it.


William Stevens Fielding: May I bring to the attention of the minister a matter concerning one of the railways which are included in the Canadian Northern system and therefore entirely within his department. There is a railway running through the western part of Nova Scotia known as the Halifax and South Western, which is one of the subsidiaries of the Canadian Northern. A fire occurred along the road a year or two ago in the district known

as Sable River and Louis Head. The people in the neighbourhood, regarding the road as now controlled by the Government, not unnaturally made representations to their members of Parliament, and I brought the matter before the railway management. I must in fairness say of them that they acted very promptly in the matter of an investigation. An official was sent down and made the necessary inquiry. My impression is he reached the conclusion that the claim was a just one, but when some delay occurred and representations were urged upon the management, the reply was that under the Railway Act not more than $5,000 could be paid on one fire claim -I think that was the statement made to me-and as the claim of these people exceeds that amount nothing could be done. Now this is one of the anomalies arising from the questionable character of the ownership of the road. If it is a government road there should be no limitation; if it is a private road, a corporation road, I suppose the general principles of the Railway Act will apply. It would certainly seem to me that the claim is a just one. I do not wish to assert that; I only speak of it because I think the inquiry that was made rather led to the department having the impression that the claim was a just one. If the claim is found to be a just one and these people have a real grievance, I do not think this $5,000 limit should stand in the way in the event of their having suffered damages to a larger extent. I do not suppose the minister himself has any particular knowledge of the subject, but there is an impression in the minds of the people down there that they have not had fair treatment in the matter, and I would be very glad if the minister could, in any way he thought best, look into it.


John Dowsley Reid: I will be glad to look into the matter and find out exactly what the situation is. Of course the railway in question is part of the Canadian Northern system, having been built by a private company, and the Railway Act would apply to this particular case. However I will look into the matter and perhaps at the next meeting of the committee I will have some information with respect to it and be able to discuss it.


Ira Eugene Argue: I would like to have a more definite statement from the minister with reference! to the branch line in Saskatchewan to run from Gravelbourg to Swift Current, on the Canadian Northern. In 1918 we were promised by the president
of the company that the railway would be in Swift Current in 1920, and we have been very patient so far in waiting for the road to be built. Now the grade is up to Neidpath, and steel is laid to within ten miles of that point. The farmers of that district have made arrangements, and laid all their plans, to build an elevator at Neidpath but they were advised that it would be better to wait until they could get some more definite assurance with regard to laying the rails on that branch. What I would like to know is whether the rails will be laid on the branch in time for these people to get out their wheat this fall. There is something like 40,000 acres of grain which will be marketed in Neidpath providing the elevator can be built so as to store the grain until it can be got out. I would like the minister to give me that assurance so the the farmers can go ahead with the arrangements for building the elevator with the certainty of being able to take out the grain this fall.


John Dowsley Reid: In speaking to Mr. Hanna about the matter he mentioned that they would lay this ten miles this year for the reason that an elevator would be built, and it was for that purpose the rails would be laid. I am quite satisfied that it is the intention of the Canadian National Railway management to lay the ten miles in question, and I feel satisfied from the way Mr. Hanna mentioned it to me that there is no doubt it will be done. Unless something unforeseen should happen it is the intention anyway to lay the rails before that time. The 50,000 tons of new rails which were purchased are now being rolled and sent on to the main line. The rails thus released will go on to the branch lines and the branch in question is one of those that will be taken up first.


Fred Langdon Davis: Can the minister give us the Manitoba programme?


John Dowsley Reid: In Manitoba: Amaranth extension, starting point Delta junction When the present track is complete the grade will be to mile 61.9; track on December 31, 1920, was at mile 44.1; 17 miles yet to lay. That will be laid this year. St. Rose du Lac branch, starting point Ochre river. When the present track is' complete the grade will be to mile 40; track on December 31, 1920, was at mile 14.9; 25.1 miles will be laid this year.


Mr. COWAN:: What policy is being
followed in putting steel upon grading al-



P.EVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ready done? The reason I ask is that it looks to me from the programme submitted to-night as if the department have completely lost a railroad in the province of [DOT]Saskatchewan. I refer to the line that was built from the Canadian Northern at Lumsden to Craven, and which has been operated in a sort of a way for freight purposes for a number of years. About seven or eight years ago the line was graded from Craven down through the Qu'-Appelle valley to serve a very thickly settled district that is badly in need of railway accommodation. Is it the policy to lay steel on grading done in the last year or two and neglect grading completed five or six years previously? It seems to me there ought to he some preference given to the grading first done.
John Dowsley Reid: It is quite evident from the remarks of the hon. member that I have not that line on my list. The policy is to lay rails on the grading already done at the earliest possible date. I will make inquiries and when we come to the item again at another sitting I will have full information ready.


Andrew Knox: Will the same assurance
be given in reference to other lines in Saskatchewan that the minister stated a little while ago were already graded?


John Dowsley Reid: I gave a list of the lines in Saskatchewan and stated that the management intended to lay rails as fast as they could get them from the main line.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When I made the statement that only 24 per cent of the grain of the West was exported through Canadian ports I could not lay my hand on the information. It has reference to the six months ending last February.


William Stevens Fielding: May I be permitted to call the minister's attention to another little line in connection with the Halifax and South Western? We are repeatedly assured by hon. members of the Government that we must all practice self-denying ordinances and not ask for new construction of public works owing to the financial situation. That argument has very much weight, but exception appears to be made, and perhaps justly made, in the matter of branch railways. My hon. friend has read a list of branch railroads in connection with the Canadian Northern which are to be constructed in the West, most of them lines of considerable length and involving large expenditure. I take it for granted that these are really urgent matters, and I do

not wish to be understood as offering any objection, but there is a small matter down in my county of Shelburne affecting the branch line running into the town of Lock-port. Lockport is one of the most important fishing towns in Nova Scotia. It is about four miles away from the main line, and its traffic at present is done by ferry. That is better than nothing, and the people are glad to have it, but at the same time the business of the community would be much better developed if they had this siding-it is not more than that- of four miles. I mentioned the matter last year when the minister was talking of branch lines in the West running into an expenditure of millions of dollars, and I said I thought it would not be asking too much to have this small branch line of four miles constructed. I think I made such an impression on the mind of the minister because I find he answered me in these terms-I am sorry I cannot find the reference at the moment, but he spoke to the effect that the matter was already engaging the attention of his department, and he did not see any reason why the line should not be constructed. Nothing has been done. I am not making a complaint on that score but I do think a strong case can be made out for this little branch if the Government is going to indulge in new expenditures of that nature in other parts of the country. The hon. gentleman assured, me last year that he would send a responsible officer down there to see the people concerned and report on the traffic prospects. I know when Mr. Hanna was in Nova Scotia making a general survey he was to have looked into the matter, but he was summoned back to Ottawa on urgent business. He assured me that he would send some one down to inspect and report. I cannot say that that has not been done, but I have heard nothing further about the matter. I would again urge the importance of this little branch line. If we were refusing branch lines everywhere I would not make this request, but this small branch of four miles I think can, for business reasons, be amply justified. I hope my hon. friend will again take a favourable view of it and see if my request cannot be complied with.


John Dowsley Reid: I well remember my
hon. friend bringing this matter to my attention last year. I cannot remember now what was done but I will make inquiries and have the information ready at the next sitting of the committee.

We have had quite a discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, May 7, 1921.